Jump to content

Talk:Islam/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage) (HAJJ IS NO RITUAL)

Hajj is not a ritual. it says on the picture of hajj it is. It makes it seem like muslims take part is shamism or something.

The meaning of the word Ritual to many people means "Magic and Witchraft"

Please change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a sweeping generalization of what many people think a ritual is. A ritual is something performed by a person because it has some sort of personal or religious value. It mostly applies to religious practices, but even everyday practices can referred to as a ritual. Such as brushing one's teeth and making a cup of coffee can be referred to as your morning ritual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual Digital Jedi Master (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Diagram on right

In the "Islam & other religions" box

It has Jainism and Sikhism; these are basically offshoots of Hindusim which pre-date the two.

Islam ought to be compared to major faiths, such as Christianity and Buddhism

Islam is afterall the fastest growing religion. Many are surprised to know similarities between Islam and Chrisrtianity. For instance Jesus Christ, Adam and Eve are messengers of Allah. But in Islam Adam and Eve were forgiven and Adam became the first prophet while in Christianity the two were original sinners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beleiver of truth (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2008

Citation for Islam being the largest single religious denomination

The article is locked, but a citation for the missing one at the end of the first paragraph is at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_muslims --Jimbo42 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That piece has already been included as a reference in the article. Celarnor Talk to me 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Islam is not a denomination. OUChevelleSS (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


This citation is not sufficient. The source is from the Vatican, not recognized as an authority on Islam by anybody but Catholics, and not even by all of them [correction: not even an official statement, an observation from a Vatican newspaper functionary]. The idea of Islam as "the largest denomination" is questionable on the face of it. First, Islam has denominations of it's own, and is not a denomination by itself. If it were, the word "denomination" would be meaningless in context. Second, denomination of what? Again, the label "denomination" would mark it as a smaller part of a larger religion, divided from others in the same religion by specific articles of faith or interpretation. MathewGSmith (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a single denomination. There have for a long time been more Muslims that Catholics. Islam should be compared to Christianity in numbers, not Catholicism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.105.55 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that neither the Yahoo link nor the Vatican states that Islam is a Denomination. It clearly says that it is a larger religion than Catholicism. It can be inferred that the Vatican doesn't consider itself a denomination, rather a religion unto itself. mpa|mpa68.249.127.44 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but the main article for Islam contains more Shiite things than Sunni, so is there any way we can clean/discuss this? Thanks DevilAshTalk! 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

from alsadi: I Agreed with that because according to all statistics Sunnies are more than 90% (refer to the fact book) it's like having to mention the communist party in the front article about USA as a major party in USA during the cold war! the problem with this approach is that it ignores many facts like that Shiites are only found on far places where people don't speak Arabic like Iran I was shocked with many articles here about Islam. PS: Shiites have an organized ways to do vandalism on wikipedia as they pay Khums to fund that. Please In any Islamic related article one should ask about valid citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydalsadi (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: I feel that the article for Islam should be much more general, while containing references or links to sections/articles that explain the viewpoints of the major sects (Sunni, Shia, etc.). For example, the "Five Pillars" is treated as if it were common to Shia and Sunni Islam, whereas Shia Islam has its own listing of its beliefs ("Usul ad-Din," 5) and its practises ("Furu' ad-Din," 10). Sunni Islam has the Five Pillars as a reference to core Sunni Islamic practises and also the Articles of Faith (6) in reference to its belief. Perhaps a brief treatment could be made of core Islamic beliefs and practises: 1) Belief in Allah 2) Belief in Prophet Muhammad 3) Belief in the Hereafter; 1) Salah 2) Zakat ("Charity" -> Zakat only for Sunni Muslims, Zakat and Khums for Shia Muslims) and 3) Hajj. Afterward, reference could be made to those points that distinguish Sunni and Shia Islam. This kind of treatment should also take care of DevilAsh's concern, since many topics would contain a general explanation of an Islamic topoic and then divert to Shia, Sunni, and other Islamic sectarian distinctions after covering the generality of Islamic belief/practise/etc. Therefore, it would not seem to contain so many references that specified only the Shia Islamic viewpoint of various topics. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Pink

Islam - not a new religion

Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible. looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction

usman 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam was predicted by pagan gods. and the birth of Muhammad (reincarnation of pagan god) kinda messed up. dates back millions of years or something like that --Mohun (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost Mohun, I believe you are mistaken. There are no records of any predictions millions of years ago. Science indicates that modern humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years total, and even less in a civilized form. Secondly, if you are referring to the Pratisargaparvan of Hinduism (which I would like to state for the record that I do not consider to be 'pagan') it is evidenced that it was created somewhere between 700 and 800 AD, **after** Muhammad, and seems to have been written in a vilifying and accusatory manner, and certainly can't be called a 'prediction.' Thirdly, as I am sure this is patent nonsense and that you would not have any verifiable sources I fail to see how this conversation can have any bearing on this article. So I must assume, for the sake of courtesy, that I have misunderstood you. If this is the case, could you clarify what you actually meant? - Peter Deer (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only in Bhavishya Purana its also mentioned in Atharaveda, Sama Veda, RigVed, Bhagawat Purana, Kalkis and goes on and on. I think the only refs to claim this would be actual pictures from these Vedas. im still working on it. i gatherd a lot of sources. and so far i can also say that the information you hear about Muhammad and Vedas are all true. i went through some books and the page numbers and chapters that articles listed about Muhammad in Vedas it all matches up so far. and futher goes into more detail. its going to take some time for me, the most i can tell you is that these website that claim Muhammad in Vedas are not making stuff up and the page numbers and chapters seem to be proper. --Mohun (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: As a conservative Muslim, I feel that it is easiest to treat Islam as its own religion when discussing it in an academic manner, rather than treating it as an original religion from which others branched. One problem in dealing with it as an original and ancient religion is that those qualities that distinguish it from other religions would have to undergo development in academic treatments. For example, the requirement for salat was different under Prophet Moses than under Prophet Muhammad, and it is alsmost certain that the various postures and recitations that comrpise salat have changed over the millenia. In addition, requirements for charitable contribution, pilgrimage, funeral processes, modesty, marriage, etc. have all changed over the millenia. Academically speaking, the primordial "Islam" is not recognisable. Furthermore, Muslims are taught that all are born on the natural path of monotheism - it is likely that this natural monotheism is what constituted the primordial religion of Prophet Adam and his family. It would simply be too confusing and require too much time, energy, and space to treat Islam as the religion that existed since the time of Adam. We Muslims have bigger fish to fry, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

In an encyclopedia, we strive to distinguish between fact and dogma. To take an example from another religion, the early Catholic church heavily edited the texts that became the new testament, but editing does not change the truth (or lack thereof) of the original text. Muslims may take comfort in believing that Islam precede Muhammad, but the fact is that he started the religion, and not a single human "practiced" Islam before him. Michael.Urban (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Heavily edited" the texts. Wow, goes to show what you know of the Bible in other Churches, such as the Nestorians, Ethiopians and other non-Ephesian Churches. Gabr-el 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites as among the first Muslims

alSala'amu alaykum. Since most of our prophets are Hebrews and Aramaics, and looking over to the Qur'an, it is quite clear that modern Islam is a re-birth of a faith gone wrong, especially between the time of Eliyas and that of I'sa. I was hoping the "History of Islam" would make significant reference to the Israelites/Children of Israel before the Muhammadan era.

See Israelites: Islamic theology and Surah Yunus

(84) And Moses said: "O my people! If you have believed in God, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims". (85) Then they [the Israelites] said: "In God we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for those who are disbelievers".

Thanks. Omar 180 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true to say that the heresy of Islam is not a new religion, it is the continuation of Christianity...at least that is what it claims. However, as Wikipedia does not hold the Islam to be true it can only view it from a scientific historical perspective- It is distinct enough to be called a separate religion by Anthropologists and Religious Studies Experts and so Wikipedia must comply with these assertions. Gavin (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Bluntly put, Christianity got KO'd so God used a phoenix down, and renamed it Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as- God revealed the path of salvation to the world...a worried Satan released his final WEAPON and called it Islam. Gavin (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as Cecil, once pure and being corrupted into a Dark Knight, finally finds his true path as a Paladin. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Necessary Update: Women

This article makes the statement that a woman recieves half the inheritence a man does, but does not explain why. In Islam, a man is required to provide for his family, and any money he has must be used for the general good of his wife and children. He is also expected to care for elderly parents. A woman's money from any source, however, is hers and hers alone. She is not required to spend it on necessities such as food, adequate clothing, shelter, heat, oil, etc.

Please ensure that statments such as this are fully explained. The last thing we need is people using articles like this as "proof" of Islam's negativity toward women simply because they are not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I don't think it implies any negativity by not explaining, but if you can locate any academic reliable sources expounding upon this then we can decide on how to briefly incorporate it. Further discussion is likely warranted at daughter articles like Women and Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would worry about adding any explanation on this page. Mostly these justifications are ad hoc attempts to counter Western critics. And that doesn't mean they're not valid... but it does mean it's hard to represent in the sentence we are giving to the issue. And, fundamentally, for most of the history of Islam it's just how it is and it makes sense. It needs no more justification than any other law. gren グレン 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and we do not want to add unnecessary complications. The statement made above is not valid in the case of a widow with children, who does often have to use her own money to provide necessities. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


NOTE : One source is the Book "Wemon rights system in Islam" (Nizam-e- Hoghugh-e-Zanan-Dar-Islam) which is written in Persian, by the famous clerick "Mortaza-Motahhari". You can look at it if you want to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.199.210 (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of Ahadith and Sunnah

There are many devout Muslims who do not trust the authenticity of recorded ahadith and sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh). There are also many devout Muslims who, regardless of their authenticity or inauthenticity, believe that the Qur'an itself is complete (by its own statment, many many times within its pages) and that ahadith and sunnah are simply unnecessary. These beliefs are definitely worth mentioning, especially since questionable ahadith and sunnah have formed the backbone of many "Islamist" regimes.

Please include a section on these beliefs, as the number of believers who ascribe to them is growing. I will gladly provide any information and documentation that may prove helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of "Qur'an-only" adherents is extremely small when weighed against even other minority sects such as Ibadis or Ahmadiyya. So as per undue weight I don't think this merits mention, and this has been the general view when this issue came up previously. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Three or so years ago I was supporting the inclusion of some of the Qur'an alone viewpoints in Islam--I'm glad I have gained better perspective. But, I do think there is a valid point about skepticism--since skepticism comes in other forms than Qur'an only. There is Sunni-Shia hadith collection disputes. There is Fazlur-Rahman-ish/liberalized scholars who argue more scrutiny is necessary but don't call for rejection. There are Hamza Yusuf types who talk about needing to study matns to make sure they do not contradict the Qur'an--even of sahih hadith. So, I would have no problem if some of that skepticism was worded in... but, I'm not sure it's necessary. gren グレン 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Qur'an-only adherents are small in numbers, but that does not mean they are nonexistent. I have read the "Undue Weight" policy and it has caused me to lose some respect for Wikipedia. Failure to mention minority viewpoints after they have been brought to attention is dishonest and misrepresentative. Biblebeltmuslimah (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues of authenticity, as well as the existence and standpoint of Quran-alone Muslims, are addressed in the hadith page. On an unrelated note, that Qur'an Alone page is very poorly done. I'll take a look at it myself later, but if any of you would like to take a crack at fixing it first that'd be just fine. Peter Deer (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The hadith page looks like it could do with some improvement too. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it could. Suppose I'll have to actually crack open a book or two. Swell. Peter Deer (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help... I have a few good sources available. :-) ITAQALLAH 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be particularly helpful. I look forward to working with you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the Quraniyoon extremely small as a sect, they have been summarily dismissed by nearly every other Islamic sect as infidel on the basis of their rejection of the use of the Prophetic Sunnah as a source of Islam. The rest of Muslims view this rejection as a rejection of Prophet Muhammad himself, which is unbelief in terms of Islam. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

History of Hadith + Quran

In the sections for Al-Bukhari's Sahih Hadith and the Quran, you can include two photos that I have taken of the worlds first printed copies of them, these are extremely rare and I'm not sure if there are other photos of them on the internet. Photos are below in my Islamic History section, if they will be used I will take my watermarks off them so let me know.

[Photos of Islamic History] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadhabib (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arshadhabib. These images would be ideal for the Qur'an and Hadith articles respectively. Less so for this article because we already have a picture of a page from the Qur'an in the Qur'an ssection, and hadith is covered quite briefly in the Muhammad section which already contains an image of Masjid al-Nabawi. But certainly the other two articles could benefit from these images.
Just as a sidenote, it looks like you've taken some photographs of impressive quality. You might wish to consider releasing some of them under a license like GFDL (or another one usable on Wikipedia) as Wikipedia tends to lack high-quality images of this nature and topic. Some may even be of featured quality. ITAQALLAH 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammadans

Hello, I noticed when i type Muhammadan it redirects to Islam. Muhammadan refers to (Pagans) that are Hindus and Buddhists that were known as Muhammadans before Islam was created. Note, there was no name of Hindu or Buddhists that time they were known as Muhammadans beacause of the Muhammadan Dynasty that arrived in South Asia. Muhammadan shold be an article about the pagan clans that were with Muhammad and shared all rituals and also described in the sacred vedas by pagan religon. Later, it was already predicted by the sacred vedas that Muhammad will be born as a reincarnation of another god and would be the one to lead the pagans and goes on and on. So its better to redirect Muhammadan to Muhammad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohun (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually no that is completely untrue. Muhammadan is a western term for Muslim/Islamic that has become mostly archaic. You will find that in western terminology predating about 1960 the terms were interchangeable in western society. Peter Deer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=muhammadan A Muhammadan is a follower of Muhammad. I'm curious if this means that Muhammadans follow only Muhammad's teachings and dismiss all the dogma that he had nothing to do with the creation of. Followers of Jesus Christ preach of following moral sincerity rather than strictly following religious ritual, so I think I see a comparison here. Also, as a random musing, if Muhammadans are followers of Muhammad that appeared before Islam was codified as it is today, wouldn't that make them a 'pure' form of followers?74.67.17.22 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammadan is a catch-all. It covers the same people as are now covered by the far more commonly used word in English, Muslim. I think you are trying to read too much into the name. Historically it is based from the fact that Westerners originally came to know Islam as the religion brought by Muhammad and that, they were Muhammadans. It's just a matter of nomenclature and Muhammad has been phased out for various reasons including that some feel it is derogatory. gren グレン 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Page Isalamic External Links

Why external links don't have eastern Muslims websits are nonMuslims afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.112.228 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than play the fear card, try helping the article. Post links to sites written in English whenever possible however, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Also, the suggestion you make that only eastern Muslim websites have the truth sounds quite biased. You should clear up any misunderstanding without throwing the 'afraid of the truth' idea around like a common conspiracy theorist.74.67.17.22 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that western websits don't have the truth. Eastern sites have more info and has more members. There are many scholars for example see the site islam house. It has 74 languages in English there are alot of article audio books you will not stop learning from the site for years. Though every time I try to post this link the next page say spam i very good site for muslims and other to read as they like to understand is called a spam an no one can benefite from it. 2 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Our linking policy has been to try to present a few basic introductory sites which are not overly pushing a strong religious or anti-religious point of view; a few sites that will have audio, video, and visual art of Islam related works; and, primarily the DMOZ directories. There are far too many sites about Islam to chose which belongs and keep the number of links manageable. This is why we linked to the DMOZ directory which should give a large array of sites of all sorts. gren グレン 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not one denomination

"There are between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity,[4] ---> but the largest single religious denomination.[5]"

What about Sunnis, Shi'a, Kharijites, etc? The article even has a section on denominations, so the above quote is clearly false hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.140.180 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree here 100%. The Pope's use of "denomination" is unconventional and probably says more about how the Vatican considers "Catholicism" than "Islam." It was also clearly not spoken in English but has been translated as such. The conventional use of "denomination," which we have adopted here on Wikipedia makes the statement entirely illogical. Why are we publishing this strange perspective in the lead? I'm removing it ... please do not simply revert it because it is "sourced." Please provide a good rationale for including this oddity, and in the lead no less.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think it's an unnecessary insertion. The ambiguity over religious groups etc. also doesn't really help. Broadly speaking Christianity is still the largest world religion, and the Vatican finding that Muslims have overtaken Catholics to become the single largest "religious group" is more of a footnote really. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Itaqallah on this one. It is unnecessary. Yahel Guhan 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, completely unnecessary and very political whether you decide that Islam is one or many. Better to leave it out gren グレン 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So why is it still there afer 16 days?Tourskin (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A denomination is a branch of a world religion so you can't really say "single denomination" it's just confusing also there in Islam one of the main reasons it's the largest growing religions is because when your'e born into a Muslim family you become a Muslim even though you may not follow the rules or lifestyle of a Muslim so a lot of the Islamic population is in fact made up of a lot of non Muslims really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This article +others may need to be updated. Islam now = Largest religion in the world.

Islam is now the largest religion in the world as per a few days ago.


CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above section. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not the largest religion in the world. Islam as a whole is now larger than one division of christianity: the catholics. This is including shi'a and Sunni muslims. 33-38% of the world's population follows christianity, whereas only 18% of the world are Muslims, so NOT the largest group or even division, as Catholicism is larger than Sunni Muslims without shi'a muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.154.181 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

islam has atleast 1.2 billion minimum this bs about islam being only a billion strong, is not true. The cia world factbook, council on american islamic relations, and the vatican all say so they seem like credible sources to me [with the possible exeption of the cia, but lets not make this a wmd fakeout discussion] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the facts: there are 2 billion Christians in the world and between 1.1-1.9 billion Muslims in the world of all sects. Does that sort out the problem? LOTRrules (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ok look im getting tired of beating this to death, until u tell me why the cia, the vatican, and the councl on american islamic relations are all, no your claim that 1.1 to 1.9 does not settle it. How about you provide me with an link to your supposed facts as i will do now #REDIRECT [[1]]

  1. REDIRECT [[2]]#REDIRECT [[3]] You can also explain this wiki consistancy issue shown in the next redirect, the site titled the muslim world say a far more reasonable estimate of 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion muslims #REDIRECT [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Islam, as a whole, Sunni and Shi'ite is now bigger than the single Christian sect of Catholicism. But not bigger than Christianity as a whole, which includes Protestantism, Orthodox, Catholicism, etc. Islam I believe would not even qualify as the largest single sect in the world, because it is split into Sunni and Shi'ite, and other smaller divisions. You can compare Christianity as a whole with Islam as a whole. You can't compare Islam as a whole with the single Christian sect of Catholicism, as Islam is broken into sects, and Catholics aren't. So Catholicism is still the largest single denomination in the world, and Christianity as a whole is still larger then Islam as a whole.

Just my two cents. If the Vatican says that Islam is the largest religion, next to Catholicism, then that pretty much dismisses any arguement. The Vatican is clearly saying that Catholicism is not a sect, denomination or anything other than a pure religion. Why there is so much resistance with grouping together Catholicism and Protestantism, when the Vatican has clearly implied that is not correct, is beyond me. Therefore either the Vatican is wrong, or you guys are right. So I agree that changes will have to be made to this article, and the articles in Christianity and Catholicism. Islam is the largest religion in the world, and apparently that is a hard pill to swallow. MPA 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@ MPA WOW, you're really pushing for Islam to be named the world's largest religion huh? Here's the jiff for the illogical to understand. Christianity as a WHOLE is bigger then Islam as a WHOLE. If you take denominations of each religion and look at them as religions in themselves, then Christianity (Catholicism) will STILL be the biggest religion. You can't lump ALL forms of Islam together and compare it with only ONE form Christianity. The Vatican was mistaken in looking at Islam as monolithic and without divisions, i.e. the SHIA, and others. If the Vatican gave themselves the same fair treatment to Islam in their comparison, they would realized they are the biggest, EITHER WAY. 71.126.110.131 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, and moreover the Oxford English Dictionary, it really depends on one's accepted definition of Catholicism. In theory, there can be different denominations and sects within Catholicism. Although, I do contend that this is merely an argument over semantics. 72.81.138.134 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dowry"

Islam#Family_life states "The groom is required to pay a dowry (mahr) to the bride, as stipulated in the contract". Mahr is not dowry... since it's from the man to the woman. And it's not bride price because it's to the woman and not her parents. And it's not really dower since that has the implications of for after husband dies... but maybe that's the closest. In any case, we should come to agreement and also... the fact that dowry is used makes me wonder how applicable the sources really are. Do they sources say dowry? I hope not. gren グレン 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would seem to be inaccurate terminology. But perhaps this is less of inaccurate understanding of the nature of Mahr and more that the term dowry has come to mean something different in western vernacular than it originally meant. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to explain this and what it would mean for the article... do you think we should keep on using dowry? gren グレン 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines dowry as "Money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage." What about the term "groomwealth"? there is no such term in English but it may be closer. although groomwealth is paid to the family of the woman and not the woman herself but this seems to be closer to Mahr.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When I studied social anthropology a long time ago there was a basic distinction between 1) "dowry", when the transfer of resources was from the bride's side to the groom's side or the couple and 2) "bridewealth", when the transfer of resources was from the groom's side to the bride's side or the couple. Ideally, we would refer at this point to a scholarly text that discussed the whole question across cultures and proposed a consistent terminology. In the absence of that, can we find a wording that explains the concept without reference to terms like "dowry" which are used loosely and potentially very confusingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick review of the sources:
Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world: "Mahr is a gift that the Muslim bridegroom offers the bride upon marriage ... ... In English, mahr has commonly been translated as "dower." (that's all it says about the English rendition)
"Mahr" article in the Encyclopedia of Islam: "Mahr: Hebrew mohar, Syriac mahrā, "bridal gift" , originally "purchase-money" , synonymous with ṣadāḳ which properly means "friendship" , then "present" , a gift given voluntarily and not as a result contract, is in Muslim law the gift which the bridegroom has to give the bride when the contract of marriage is made and which becomes the property of the wife." - in the rest of the article the Arabic rendition mahr is favoured although it's sometimes substituted with "bridal gift."
"Bridal gift" is also the rendition of mahr given in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic cultures (Brill publishers) p. 258
Other sources use "dowry," "bride price," "dower," and so on. I'd probably be in support of using bridal gift because it seems to be the most accurate, but there really is no unanimity amongst the sources on this one. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do our best to explain what it is and not refer to "dowry" or even "bridal gift" as these words do not provide much enlightenment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In English, the word "dowry" has several meanings (as Itsmejudith should know), one of which is " a gift of money or property by a man to or for his bride".[5] An online Arabic-English dictionary also translates mahr as "dowry".[6] Beit Or 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sufi umar (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)thegeniousumar== Creation ==


When Jibra'el the angel came to tell to Mohammad( SAWS) to preach ,the muslim era didn't start there but it started when Adam(A.S) was sent down to earth. According to the muslim calendar we are in the year 1386. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi952 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New map is better

I'd like to weigh in on the map situation. The new map, put up by Moshino, is much more intuitive than the one we had up previously. That's not to say that the old map was no good, but the gradient of greens from light to dark (low to high) makes more sense than arbitrary colors assigned to the different percentages. Another similar option would be to go between two colors in a gradient, like yellow and red, but I think this one is supurb. I'm going to revert back to Moshino's map and I'd like to hear a good argument for keeping the old one. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the darker side of the map, with the high percentages isn't clearly distinct enough between some of the groups I'm assuming Moshino can tweak the coloring a bit. That problem does not change the fact that this map is much more informative for what it does and requires much less work to figure out.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree as well with your comments thanks a lot, plus for the old maps, I have also given links to them on the maps if people are having trouble viewing them.. for all of them. Moshino31 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You should propbably credit the CIA World Factbook and the other map as a source. I almost disagreed with the change because I thought yours was unsourced until I checked the difference between the two and saw none. gren グレン 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tahrif

Tahrif is a significant Islamic belief, but not significant enough to be in the lead. A more significant belief, that in the Day of Judgment, would be much better suited. We should also state Tawhid more explicitly (saying that Islam is monotheist is not enough).Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

A couple of nights ago, I readded the criticism section that had been agreed upon at FAC but it was removed. (I actually closed this at FAR and either missed that the section was gone or looked at a version that temporarily had it.)

The reverting edit summaries suggested that it had been incorporated into the rest of the article. I don't disapprove of moving criticism in general, and I think it's right (usually) to deprecate criticism sections. But looking now I don't see that anything has actually been reincorporated. The best I can find is the last paragraph of Modern times. There's no criticism there—it's a typical, badly done strawman + apologism paragraph. (Side note: which David Duke?!)

I know if someone comes along and demands criticism it might seem like they have an axe to grind. I don't think I've behaved that way with this article. I sung it's praises closing the FAR—but I missed this removal of information. I find it a little troubling, for instance, that the See also didn't take the link to the criticism article. I don't see reincorporation. Only removal. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does seem some information got lost in the movement, and addition of loaded descriptors like "idealogues". I think your recent change is an improvement. - Merzbow (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I added the see also link. I think it was a while ago that it was agreed that the criticism section should be merged within other parts of the article. Yahel Guhan 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback: I have an issue with using inherently unreliable citations, such as Spencer's/Warraq's works or the cite to FPM. Better alternatives such as Rippin's work or the NYT book review have been removed. So I don't agree with replacing good quality sources with poorer ones. You may have mistaken apologism for apologetics, but I disagree with your basic point. The version you inserted is much less balanced, as it includes ~5 claims, and a comment about fundamentalism; and essentially 1 counter claim, with a comment about Islamophobia. There's also an uninformative list of apologists (arguably as loaded as 'idealogues') tacked on at the end.

A much fairer balance is stuck in the prior version, where we have two critiques (which aren't straw men, else they wouldn't have remained in the current version either); a recognition that Muslim scholars contest these claims (not a response); a response from some academic scholars and a more informative comment about Islamophobia from Carl Ernst.

I don't intend to make any immediate changes, but I prefer the previous version with some tweaks (idealogues -> writers) and the inclusion of the sentence about fundamentalism. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize Spencer is problematic, as he's so polemical. But I would not call him "inherently unreliable." If we flag his opinions as his opinions, I think they are valid for inclusion, given that he has an established and well known reputation on the subject. (Ditto Rushdie—that letter about Islamophobia was in here at one point, and has also been removed.)
As for balance, we need to consider the article as a whole. I find the readded paragraph balanced because, as I say, there's basically no other criticism anywhere. For instance, Family life (a section added during FAC) elides commonly brought up criticisms of polygamy and inheritance. If those were included, I wouldn't see a need to mention Spencer.
On the whole, this article remains clinical and soundly written. It is a strong Wikipedia piece and I don't want to mess up sections with he said/she said paragraphs. But it shouldn't be completely absent modern criticisms, as the reader will arrive considering them and NPOV suggests we include them. Marskell (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
While the current criticism section is better than the pseudo-criticism featured before, it's still problematic in many respects. For example, the section mentions some people who criticised Islam in the Middle Ages, but it doesn't say what charges those people put at Islam's door. Furthermore, in Abbasid times, there was an extensive anti-Islamic Christian polemical literature (and, of course, anti-Christian Muslim polemical literature), which the article passes over in silence. The recentist focus of the criticism section is also troubling. Modern times have seen much more prominent critics of Islam than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq; Henri Lammens and Winston Churchill may be the first who come to mind. Beit Or 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the polemical literature is mentioned. Did you miss the following in the Golden Age (750-1258) section: "The spread of the Islamic dominion induced hostility among medieval ecclesiastical Christian authors who saw Islam as an adversary in the light of the large numbers of new Muslim converts. This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman.[79] In the medieval period, a few Arab philosophers like the poet Al-Ma'arri adopted a critical approach to Islam, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides contrasted Islamic views of morality to Jewish views that he himself elaborated." ITAQALLAH 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it because it was buried deep inside in the body of the article? It's funny that the description of this polemics is itself polemical: some early writers do call the Arabs libidinous (not sure where the "subhuman" comes from), but the main points of dispute were, of course, theological. Anyway, my other points stay. Beit Or 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After checking the source (Tolan, John V. (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. Columbia University Press.), I must say that it is badly misrepresented in the article. Yes, the book says on p. xvi "Medieval Christian writings about Islam contain much that is appalling to the twentieth-century reader: crude insults to the Prophet, gross caricatures of Muslim ritual, deliberate deformation of passages of the Koran, degrading portrayals of Muslims as libidinous, gluttonous, semihuman barbarians.", but "This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman." is certainly not a correct summary of the Christian polemical literature, since it contained much more than that. "Libidinous and subhuman" is senationalist cherry-picking. Beit Or 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Badly misrepresented? I see no misrepresentation of the source whatsoever. Did you bother checking pp. 40-41? "Over time, however, it became clear that the new Muslim rulers were here to stay. Muslims affirmed their power, proselytized among Christians and Jews, and dotted the landscape with new mosques; only then did Christians begin to take Islam seriously as a religious rival and to attempt to define it in Christian terms. Some authors ascribed an apocalyptic role to Islam; its rise and its winning of new Christian converts were proof that it was the religion of Antichrist and that the last days were at hand. Some authors branded Islam as heresy, falsely derived from Christian doctrine. In an attempt to stem the tide of conversions to Islam, they denigrated it using the familiar traditions of antiheretical polemics. A few Christians attacked Islam and its prophet in public, deliberately provoking the Muslim authorities into inflicting the death penalty; thus they became new martyrs whose hagiographers attempted to boost the flagging Christian morale." I think the description used in the article is quite a sober representation of the source and that quote you gave. I fail to see where the "cherry-picking" has taken place. Can you show me where the source makes your claim that there was "much more than that"? ITAQALLAH 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You did that for me. Just in the paragraph above, the source cites the theme of Islam being a Christian heresy. Other themes include: Muslim conquests as punishment for the sins of Christians (p. 40), Muhammad being a false prophet (p. 52), Qur'an being full of absurdities (p. 52) etc. Even without delving much into sources, some common sense is enough to see that "polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman" is not an accurate and clinical summary of Christian-Muslim polemics. Beit Or 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Your contention was that the main points of the early Christian opposition to Islam were theological, and that the book had somehow been misrepresented by omitting the mainstay of the criticism. None of what you cited were theological refutations, just more examples of polemical accusations. The notion of Muslim conquests as punishment for Christian sin wasn't directly an attack on Islam as it was a blame on Christians. I don't see any point being made except that every single attack the book mentions isn't highlighted in the two-sentence summary (if it were, I suspect the passage would be looking much more "polemical" than it apparently does now). Putting the Christian polemics into perspective with regards to the whole of Muslim history which the section attempts to cover, I think the two to three sentences on this specific issue is fair, and I think the source has been adequately, fairly, and soberly represented. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Marskell, I disagree with you on the issue of which sources may be used and when. If Spencer's view is of repute, can't we find an independent reliable source discussing it? If reliable sources aren't discussing it... well it's a good indication that it's probably not as popular as forwarded, and subsequently not noteworthy here either. We did that with Warraq, as we have some of his views covered by Andrew Rippin and the NYT Book review. So we're using reliable sources to provide information about Warraq and his views. [Tangent: It's like saying one should use Ahmed Deedat's or Zakir Naik's works themselves in the Christianity article to provide examples of criticism. Hence, any source is technically "reliable for its own views," and so long as the source is notable and the comment relevant, it merits inclusion. That's a view I've always disagreed with. If a person isn't reliable in and of themselves (i.e. a polemical writer, for example), then they shouldn't be used as a source in the article. That doesn't mean their view shouldn't be mentioned, because we can use a reliable source (i.e. mainstream newspaper, journal, book review) that has mentioned the view, ultimately demonstrating its significance.]
To look at the distribution of article from the perspective of where criticism is present and absent is fundamentally flawed IMO. Encyclopedic, dispassionate coverage about the facts of Islam isn't exactly "pro-Islam" by default. The family life section should give us the facts about the Islamic family structure in a concise manner as per WP:SS. The issue of those saying the Islamic familial system is just, of the natural order/fitra, empowering, or oppressive, misogynist, backward, is all secondary - and really this section isn't the place to discuss it. The counter-balance to criticism here is response. And the focus on negative opinions should be in equal proportion with opposing views, so that the reader is at least shown both perspectives and in equal weightage. I fear that current layout, which is just under half a dozen unanswered critiques and a single generic response about old myths and polemics, doesn't quite strike that balance.
I have no issue with mentioning the opinions raised about Islam in recent times and I think it warrants discussion in this article. But I want to ensure the coverage of views about Islam is balanced. Perhaps the next productive step here is to work on a presentation that meets in the middle between the two versions. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If we're not going to have a criticism section, the family life section is the logical place for a short (sentence or two) nod to criticism directed at, well, family life in Islamic religion/culture... - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Secularists and non-Muslims have questioned the compatibility of Islam with modern notions of women's rights. Reformist Muslims have not necessarily adopted Western or other outside frameworks in arguing for greater rights for female Muslims. The ability of a man to treat multiple wives equally has been questioned, for instance, with reference to the Qu'ran itself.[1]"
Will this do? It gives a single sentence nod to outside criticism but then focuses on developments within the religion. Marskell (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale behind compensating a more neutral layout (i.e. integration of the criticism section) by adding more criticism. I personally don't believe any further coverage of criticism - especially recentist - is necessary, especially when the perspectives of reformists and Islamists are already covered. ITAQALLAH 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your argument amounts, then, to having no criticism in the article at all. (And it's clear that the section wasn't integrated—it was simply removed.) How three sentences on the status of women compromises the coverage, I don't know. It's pertinent, widely discussed, and deals directly with the text of the Qu'ran. Hardly recentism, in the sense that that term is used around here. Marskell (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've explained my position in detail above, and it doesn't amount to omitting mention of criticism. The issue isn't about interpretations about the status of women - if you look at the section, that is already given copious coverage. There's a long list of other - factual - things we can discuss about family life in Islam as related in academic texts, long before giving the nod to individuals who don't just criticise this aspect, but virtually every aspect. The comparison with modern ideals is indeed of recentist and undue focus, as we omit any mention of the comparative status of women thirteen hundred years prior (e.g. Women had the right to independently own property/wealth before and after marriage in Islam, a right which was only granted in Britain in the late 19th century).
We already cover the issue of criticism, two paragraphs worth in the History section. To say the criticism section was ever removed is just plain wrong. Most of the content from those two paragraphs were simply relocated, as is plainly viewable in the article history and talk archives. Some specific critiques were removed, so as to maintain an air of balance and adequately recognise that such critiques are indeed disputed; as opposed to a string of undisputed claims opposed by one generally vague dismissal. The paragraph in the Modern times section is something I think needs tweaking, as already explained. Instead of recognising that this aspect needs collaborative work, the focus seems to be more on where else we can add yet more "criticism," as if these opinions are the most important things that can be said about the topic. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire article, by necessity and nature, has a recentist focus. That's why there is a specific "history" section. The article as a whole focuses on what Islam is in the here and now. So recent debate on the subject is of far more importance that what the situation was 1300 years ago. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article should actually avoid a recentist focus for reasons mentioned here. The history section is about the history of Islam up until today - hence it includes a section on modern times, which does provide substantial coverage about criticism and recent discourse. The article itself isn't about recentist focus at all, it's about what the academic scholarly texts say about Islam, taking into account the primary texts, the secondary texts, and the institution of Islam as a whole and throughout its history. Whilst "recent debate" is a noted topic, and has been given its own space, it's certainly not significant enough to saturate the entire article by virtue of it being more recent. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We should not shoehorn criticism into its own section for the same reasons we should not shoehorn discussion of the "modern-time" debate over these issues into its own section. If you grant one, you must grant the other. This is highly relevant information to today's readers. - Merzbow (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with the first part of the statement at least, in regards to there being a criticism section, but I find that Itaqallah has made some good points as well and I think that he is right in regards to the criticisms that were removed, unless I've overlooked something significant. Perhaps it's just me but a criticism section by itself seems like it might be undue weight to individual points of view, where a popular opposition section might be more appropriate, and having these critical viewpoints represent their respective oppositions. Or perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, that's also a possibility, happens all the time. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think modern developments have been shoehorned, as discussing them in that section is natural as it's a part of the timeline of Muslim history. But my point is that certain perspectives being more recent doesn't mean they're more significant to the topic as a whole, or that they merit more coverage on that basis alone. The strength of coverage is determined by the comparative weight given to the topic in academic scholarly discussion. The family life section already gives decent coverage to different perspectives in modern times, so I don't understand why more should be inserted as opposed to more content about factual matters, like women's ownership of property/wealth, who qualifies as mahram, children's role in the family, and so on. The presumption is of course that further coverage is actually needed, and I don't believe that to be the case. ITAQALLAH 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

About Prophet Muhammad

The article says that Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet, this is untrue. According to hadith the Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims never to say one prophet was better than another. So please change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.45.241 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It says that "Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet", it doesn't say "Muhammad said he was the greatest prophet". So, I think the distinction is clear or I am mistaken? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim, and I dont view him as the greatest prophet! (I view each prophet has come down with his own miracle/sign and Job/duty and) what distinguishes Muhammed is that (in islam) he is the final prophet to be born with the final message. A more appropriate sentence would be "Muslims view Muhammad as the final prophet born bringing the final message (the Koran)" [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the same can be said about Jesus - him saying he was the Son of God versus that's what Christians view him as - many newer schools of thought, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy are beginning to somewhat merge with the Islamic view of him being a messenger - rather than a Demi-God. My point is all those figures are historically very obscured - if you believe they existed even! Best we can do is just reflect what the majority followers of the religion believe. I doubt you can prove anything about him - let alone what he said. We should edit this article so it reflects what Muslims view him as, which has a much stronger bases in ancient texts etc than the virtually non-existant historical accounts of him. Pink Princess (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The influence of Islam...

"The Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim movements either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Some consider themselves separate while others still sects of Islam though controversial in certain beliefs with mainstream Muslims. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism."

This paragraph is currently located under Denominations: Others but I think it would fit better under Islam and other religions. Oore (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To-Do List

Well, I think that the history is already told, and the history section should be converted to "Political History" or "History After Muhammad". Will someone change that section? --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian version of Islam?

IS there any room for this topic here or should a new page be written. I ask as Indonesia is numerically the most populous Muslim nation- and there is much variety and discussion within Indonesia about Islam.Starstylers (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is notable and sourced, add it to Islam in Indonesia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deen or religion

Seeing that my edit replacing the word "religion" with and internal link to the article on "Deen" (the word muslims and the Koran use to describe Islam) has been reverted by Jet, I felt it appropriate to bring this up on the talk page instead of reverting his revert. Islam is regarded by Muslims as a deen (way of life) and not a mere religion. Seeing that the Koran also uses this word instead of the arabic word for relgion, I think it is appropriate that in internal link be provided to "deen" so that a reader can understand both sides of the issue. Mushoo (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for numerous reasons. Islam is seen as a religion by many more than a way a life. The idea that it is a way of life stems from the belief that it is the one true faith, and therefore the way of life. Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I also disagree in that the very first part of the article should try hard not to confuse the reader. It's confusing enough already with the specialized terms. A religion or a religious tradition that also has elements that explicitly direct how to organize one's life is not unheard of, so it is not 'false' to say it is a religion. The idea of Deen (Arabic term) should be brought out in the article, and actually I'm quite surprised that it does not seem to be mentioned? In fact, can someone point to where the (Western notion of) tension between religion and society is resolved? Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Apart from all that, can someone check whether my change at Deen (Arabic term) seems correct? It was confusing to me... Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with use of 'religion' over 'deen'. It may be less specific, but it's far more familiar. And for the reasons Shenme gave, it doesn't really add any new information. Ilkali (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the idea of Deen should be brought up later in the article, and yes it is surprising that it has not been mentioned. Mushoo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.202.27 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Religion" is the common rendition of "din." Yes, I know it's a pretty sloppy one at that, but the article does note that din is "usually translated as religion", and also provides a link to the respective article where the issue can be clarified. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Deen" is Arabic for religious faith. It is just as likely to be used by Christian and Jewish Arabs (which I witnessed) as Muslim Arabs. I am very confused as to your thinking as all religions - and even other personal belief systems i.e. Vegetarianism - are seen as ways of life. IMO, Islam can be as well described as Religious Faith/Way of life in any language as well as Arabic, though I must admitt my knowlede of Islam is not up to scratch. Pink Princess (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on Wilfred Cantwell Smith, the thesis put forward in his book The Meaning and End of Religion the word deen cannot be translated as religion for a number of reasons. The article has the following paragraph:
If the word deen is still being substituted by religion, then we should also insert Smith's opinion about the word. Regards--Shahab (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Talk page has been semi-protected for 48 hours given graffiti. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Unorthodox Islamic sects

I'm surprised by the lack of allusions to unorthodox Islamic sects. No allusions to the Druze, Ahmadiyah, Ansariyah...It's non-scientific to repudiate those branches of Islam, only because they are opposite to the Islamic orthodoxy. And, certainly, leaves an impression of pro-political correctness bias.

See the last paragraph of Islam#Other religions. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, nomen est omen, as Latin adagio goes. "Other religions". It's assumed they are marginal, instead of studying with Sunnism, or Shiism. Anyway, I think this matter is very controversial, and therefore, difficult to treat it adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.75.213 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam world's largest religion?

Ive heard Islam is the world's largest religion So I checked on the Internet and it says it's true check for your self if you don't beleive me. I was still wondering and I don think it's true so I am going to ask if it's true from you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources I've encountered agree with this article, in that Islam is the second-largest. Unless you provide a link to a reliable source, your claim doesn't mean much. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what the suer means is this: discounting the fact that Muslims are split into two major sects (Sunni and Shia), Islam is the largest denomination in the world, given that Muslims outnumber Catholics (the largest Christian denomination). This conclusion, however, is based upon Vatican statistics, who has specifically said that it can't vouch for statistics on Muslim population. I've not seen independent sources come to the same conclusion.Bless sins (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to give a more detailed answer- for arguments sake. Islam covers around 21.01% of the world population. This however is split into the denominations of Sunni, Shi'a, Sufism, and Kharijites. Christianity is makes up about 33.32% it however is split up into allot of denominations.

So,

Christianity- 33.2% (1.9 billion)

Roman Catholicism- 16.99%
Protestantism- 5.78%
Orthodox- 3.53%
Anglican- 1.25%
Other Christian- 5.77%

Islam-22.01% (1.1 billion)

Sunni-
Shi'a-
Sufism-
Kharijites-

Thus, Christianity is the worlds largest Religion and Roman Catholicism remains the worlds largest Religious Denomination. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You split Christianity into percentages for individual denominations, but not Islam. Based on the 85/15% split between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims as given in this article and Demographics of Islam, and taking say 2% off the Sunni figure to allow for smaller minorities (some not considered as true Muslims by other Muslims), 83% of 22.01% (which is a very over-precise figure, but never mind) is over 18.2% of whatever the 100% figure is supposed to represent (it's way short of the current world population), as opposed to Roman Catholicism's "16.99%". And that very probably would make Sunni Islam the world's largest single religious denomination. David Trochos (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologise- the way I presented the figures was misleading. Of the 6 billion people on earth. 33% are Christian. Of the 6 billion people on Earth 17% are Roman Catholic.

Christianity has 1.9 billion adherents. Islam has 1.1 billion. The Roman Catholic denomination has around 1 billion adherents. The Sunni denomination (Islam's largest) claims about 85% of Islam's 1.1 billion followers. Thus Roman Catholicism is still a largest denomination than Sunni. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeeewww, nasty math! First, there aren't 6 billion people on Earth any more; latest figure in World population is nearly 6.7 billion. Second, 1.9 billion is not 33.2% of the same population as 1.1 billion is 22.01% of anyway. Third, the Roman Catholic denomination had (per Guinness Book of Answers, 1993 ed.) around 1 billion adherents back in the early 1990s (when the world population was about 5.5 billion, hence just over 18% R.C.)- so if your 1 billion figure is still correct for 2008 then the R.C. proportion of the world's population has declined sharply, to around 15%. Fourth, the adherents.com headline figures are rather different from those you quote: Christianity 2.1 billion and Islam 1.5 billion (though they make it very clear that those are pretty much educated guesses based on extrapolation from earlier educated guesses; also they did the calculations back in 2005, seemingly using 2003-4 world population figures of 6.3 billion). Not that all this OR is admissible anyway, but I'm hoping it will inspire somebody to find a currentish figure in a WP:reliable source. David Trochos (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is 5 pilars of islam are not accuratly represented here? Giving wrong and inaccurate information on this site will damage the credibility of this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.98.89 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Old but i feel like commenting on the above misplacede comment: this sites credibility is already near 0% simply because it is wikipedia.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jihad

The section on Jihad is not only extremely inaccurate but also offensive. Jihad is the 'internal struggle against temptation'. What the hell happened to that belief which is held by virtually all muslims, and why is the belief of a few violent lunatics is represented more here. This is common sense and I don't think sources are necessary for it, but I'll try gathering some if I have time if there's any opposition. I'll attempt changing the wording slightly if there's no objections. Pink Princess (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you need sources for all your edits. Everything needs sources. If you've heard something, or know something but don't recall the source, you may post it here and someone may find a source.Bless sins (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink Princess, the article does say that "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare: the external Jihad includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice."
Don't you agree that a culture within which a religion is born specifies the kind of distortions that would take place in it? Don't Muslims claim (truly or falsely) that Christianity became distorted once it was separated from its Jewish culture and won converts in a Hellenistic one? Now, just think about it for a minute: what were the most salient features of the Arabian culture that could possibly color Islam in its own image? These were the idea of Arab superiority, and warfare (Bedouin's national sport); lo and behold, developments towards both of these can be located in the early centuries of Islam some of which were later corrected upon and some were kept.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly Pink Princess, it is clear that the Quran teaches "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" And it is also certain that the primary battle in Islam is against Satan fought in one's own heart, as it is in all the religions of God. As far as the article goes, however, it notes the personal nature of an individual's struggle against Evil (the greater Jihad) quite prominently. I do not see the objectionable nature you seem to see here. Peter Deer (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Deer, I'll read it again tomorrow and get back to you mate. Be Happy, WTF you mean warfare is a beduins national sport? Are you implying Beduins are bloodthirsy loons or are warmongerers, as that is very insulting and shows the ignorance of such a idiot. Look at most wars today, who is starting them for their own greed you bigot. Pink Princess (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "national sport" was a good way of putting it. The Beduins were a war-like people who clashed with one another in tribal warfare yes. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course in the beduin culture of pre-islamic arabia, they were careful not to kill because of the blood feud incurred; in fact the main purpose of raids were to acquire booty not to kill. Without doing that the survival of Bedouins was not fully possible; something dictated by the harsh environment of the desert. Sometimes it was indeed carried as a sport and show of brevity. This was the culture in which Islam was born; this is not say that Islam at the time of Muhammad endorsed that form of warfare; in fact to the contrary. Nor do I claim that in practice Muslims were historically more violent than say Christians, to the contrary. My point was the mark that the Arabian culture left in the formation of the traditional concept of Jihad. Yes, as I said most modern Muslims view Jihad as defensive but that you can find in modern times.
Lastly, Pink Princess, see WP:CIVILITY --Be happy!! (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I too think that putting it as "national sport" is not a good description. More appropriate would be to say that they Bedouin did not see any moral objection is seizing goods by force.
But we should look at it another way to. The pre-Islamic Arabs had months of peace, in which warfare was forbidden. Thus, they were very far from the civilized concept of "All is fair in war". Given the forbidden months, wars longer than a few months would have been impossible.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless it was seasonal, like 6 months rest than the remaining 6 months are war? Tourskin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Be Happy, I misunderstood you, but saying war to them is a national sport was very misleading and gives the impression I got which does not seem to be what you intended to. I appologise for my harsh langauge, I agree totally that unfortunately a lot of Beduin Arab pre-Islamic culture which was at that time violent, was wrongfully kept in Islam. However, this shold be highlighted in the article so to prevent it being taken as being a true part of Islamic teachings. And Tourskin, what are you implying? Lastly, I keep my objections to the Jihad section, I read it again, and it still remains to represent the minority twisted view of the radicals and not at all mainstream Islam. Also it almost excuses misinterpretaions and wrong interpretations of Jihad, by stating 'It is commonly taken as the military form', or something similar. I hope you all understand this is a wrong interpretation - especially one born from anti-Islam loons after the 'War on Terror'.

True Jihad is internal struggle against evil - yes Islam does have rule for defensive warfare, and sanctions it in some cases, but that is not at all Jihad. Also Islam never allows wars and violence to spread Islam or for expansionism, though this was used by Muslim Missionaries in practice - much like those of virtually all other religions including Christianity.

Unfortunately now I am very bussy (still) - the more university forms I fill in and send, the more come through the post, and they need me to do research on the internet to understand and of the crap on them. Also I need to pass my driving test. :( So I'd appreciate if someoe can try and find some sources for true Jihad so it can get edited and corrected, and PM me to let me know, as I wont come here for a while. Many thanks in advance. Pink Princess (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The section as written is quite fair and is based on a variety of reliable sources. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No I disagree as a Muslim, it is not at all fair, and very biased to show Islam as an exceptionally violent religion, and as I said plays into current misinterpretations by anti-muslims or muslim crazies about Jihad. And sources don't matter, as with all belief systems, interpretations of the individuals count the most. Those sources are from the minority opinion of Muslims. Pink Princess (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh come on, where is the bias? It doesn't even mention the fact that many terrorists have been misguided to believe jihad justifies their actions. It says that its the only form of warfare allowed. It was issued to expand the Islamic state, thats how the Moors conquered southern spain, the Turks conquered Byzantium and how the Arabs conquered the Middle East in c 630 AD. Its also been used to defend Islamic countries/territories like in Afghanistan. Interpretations of individuals count the most? Then why do you label those sources as minority opinions and criticize; make up your mind do you want the narrow opinions of a few terrorists to tell you what Jihad is or would you like sources and scholars to tell you? Besides, you should be impartial to this regardless of your Islamic identity, this is how wikipedia works, if you're insulted by the truth, too bad, I'm insulted by the fact that there's anti-religious jokes around every corner, but you gotta stop fantasizing about what you think it is and accept what it is, whatever it is. Tourskin (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink, your personal opinions are your own, but this section was carefully written and has achieved wide consensus. It uses very reliable sources, per WP:V, and is balanced per WP:NPOV. If you have additional reliable sources to present, please do, and we will discuss how to add them. If you think we are misrepresenting an existing source, or giving undue weight to some of the existing sources, please say how, in specific reference to the text. - Merzbow (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I clearly said that despite what people have excused in history - much like the bloodbaths you fanatic Christians have caused, it does not represent the original teaching you idiot - but hey, reading your page I should guess you'd enjoy anything that slants Islam into a bad like you anti-Islamic racist prick. And when since terrorists or History represented Islam or any other religion - do the missionaries who offer food and aid to the poor, taking advantage of their situation represent Christianity, because I never see that in the Christianity section, nor the massacres carried out to spread that religion, or most others. Religion is scripture and majority opinion - none of those are whats represented in that section in my opinion. Majority opinion and Scripture says Jihad has nothing to do with warfare, and that is what must be represented first and foremost - not the opinions of a few extremists brainwashed or tricked, nor the racist anti-Islam, hate-mongering bigots like Tourskin who seem to want to slander everyone else without looking at themselves. Like I said, I don't have time to keep coming here and search for sources. I created this section specifically to appeal for others lucky enough to have more time on their hands to find such sources, and PM me so I can try putting an arguement forwards at some time.

And Merzbow, thanks but only because it was present on Wikipedia first, does not at all mean that it is in any way superior or truth as per the 'Wiki-Elitest' attitudes. As long as we have people who know nothing about Islam, nor have anything to do with it but to further their own hate-mongering political agendas - wether that be the terrorist loons or extremist Christian racists and hatemongerers like Tourskin - whatever is written here will have a clear bias no matter how strict the many rules here are - but nothing's completely unbiased in the world. I'll try reading the sources when I get time - writing all this is surprisingly much less time consuming than reading all the sources ;) . Thanks again for the advice.

I'll try convince my local Imam to come here with religious, rather than historic sources which this seems to be mainly based on, to correct this. In the meantime I want this section primarily for new sources of Jihad to represent that opinion rather than discussion - a request for help rather than discussion as I have no time to search the whole archives of the internet. I don't know what the wiki policy is on that or what I should do to ask for help in terms of sources here. Should I delete all this discussion and simply put a notice for help on sources to support that or what? Unfortunately even if I get sources I wont be able to come here for some time. Pink Princess (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are a misguided individual. First of all, I am not a Christian fanatic. My User page shows sayings of Jesus Christ, all of which are totally peaceful. Secondly, Islamic terrorism exists, and is the largest form of terrorism. Christian terrorism or terrorism in the name of Christianity is almost non-existent in contrast. Thirdly, I did not say that Islam commits massacres or anything and I did not say that Islamic Jihad supports terrorism. Look at my arguments. Did I say that? Why do you continue to make up your stuff? I said that terrorists use Islamic Jihad, and that is not mentioned in the article. Nor did I ask it to be mentioned. All I asked was that you be consistent. You can't use the sources that you like, which is what you are doing. All religions have had followers who have commited terrible crimes, including followers of Catholicism and followers of Islam. You live in a foolish fantasy world and refuse to acknowledge religious persecution, regardless of religion. It is high time for you to cease your personal attacks against me, wake up from your belief that Islam or any religion has never commited mistakes and accept the overwhleming number of sources that state what Jihad is, and I have not said anywhere on this page at all that Islam is a religion or war or that Jihad supports terrorism, anywhere at all!!! You want to stay in wikipedia, you stop your personal attacks.Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink, you are on ice so thin its thickness can only be measured with an electron microscope. Please reconsider your approach here. - Merzbow (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Pink Princess would not stay much in wikipedia if personal attacks are not stopped. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to contrast the Qur'anic view of Jihad and of warfare with the way Muslims have historically approached it, using the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an articles on Jihad and Warfare? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would include more useful information that would distinguish between what its suppose to be and what it is. Tourskin (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the balance that has previously been agreed upon is a fair one. Jihad in Islamic legal discourse refers primarily to military combat. In more ascetic, spiritual tracts it assumes the meaning of striving against sin or internal evils - or self purification. As far as I remember (although I haven't checked the section recently), the section does maintain a balance between these two aspects. ITAQALLAH 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will only push this matter if there is support for it, I'll drop it otherwise. I don't want to be seen as anti-Islamic or a Christian fanatic, but I hate political correctness as well. Tourskin (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, like I said many times before, the current Islamic Jihad is used as a military/political tactic against the sometime's equally harsh foriegn policies of the mainly Christian West towards third-world Muslim countries. I'm sure if the West was Muslim - Islamic terrorist would be totally obscilete, so we'll get Arab/Central Asian terrorism instead. Be Happy, I think that would be a great idea, so to shut some of those fanatics and bigots up who claim Islam is a religion of war more so than others, and teaches hate to everything West - for political motives. Tourskin, I agree with you there for once, but I'll continue to find sources that represent Jihad to what I was bought up to believe it is, and I believe/hope most muslims will agree to that rather than Itaqallah's and the section's views of it being also/more military based. But it'll probably take me some time - as answering these has taken most my PC time today. Pink Princess (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123) 2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12) 3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85) 4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5) 5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191) 6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193) 7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14) 8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66) 9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28) 10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)

These excerpts are taken from the Koran itself; I don't see how this leaves much 'wiggle room' for tolerance in modern Islam unless followers have decided to ignore sections of their holy text, and Jihad would seem inevitable to me.Mjackso6 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're taking them out of context, silly. I can take parts of the Bible or Das Kapital out of context too. Here we go, let me correct your lack of research:
  • You quote verse 9:123. In the start of that chapter, verse 9:6 states, "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."
  • You quote verse 8:12. After that is verse 8:37, which states, "Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning)."
  • You quote verse 3:85, verse 3:113 after that states, "They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him)." The phrase "People of the Scripture" refers to Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.
  • You quote verse 9:5, but you don't fully quote it, you cut off part of the quote. The entire part states as follows, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful." And even establishment of worship isn't needed, since many groups rejected Islam and just accepted a treaty with Muslims.
  • You quote verse 2:191. Right after that verse is 2:192, which states, "But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.". Earlier in that chapter is verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
  • You quote verse 9:193, which doesn't even exist, since the 9th chapter of the Qur'an only has 129 verses!
  • You quote verse 9:14, but right before that verse, verse 9:13 states, "And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." So, once again, we have defensive fighting.
  • You quote verses 9:28 and 9:29. I once again quote verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
You should do your own research instead of finding quotes on the Internet and not actually reading them in context. Islam brought to religion the idea we must logically accept things through our own research, both through intellect and heart. I urge you to do the same, no matter what religion you are, or even if you have no religion. Truth and logic must go hand in hand, don't discriminate or hate another faith or judge them until you do actual research, instead of copying and pasting verses out of context with causes hatred towards people, giving them wrong impressions. Don't just trust what someone else tells you, you need to verify it yourself. Your sister in humanity, --Enzuru 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Das Kapital? Lol. Gabr-el 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, leave me alone, I couldn't think of anything. I originally put Slipknot. --Enzuru 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


Unless someone can fins a reliable source (print, direct from the Quran, etc.) for the following 'interpretation':

Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam.

then I will go ahead and delete it. Unless it can be supported as reliable information (not just POV), then it should not be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates42 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-added the section removed by Socrates42. The reference seems to be pretty well supported by the immediately following sentence: "Jihad... may be declared against... non-Islamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam." Sounds pretty straightforward. RavShimon (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)RavShimon

The definition "Surrender to the will of God" is only half of the interpretation. Islam defined is "peaceful surrender to the will of God".

...The Arabic word for surrender without the connotation of peace is "Har-ram". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.190.59 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and edit it yourself, adding in sources Tourskin (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Or if you do not know how, or just don't want to do it yourself, post the location of the sources here and one of the other editors or myself will do so (provided they're neutral, verifiable, and not original research, of course). Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

you are wrong it means 'Submission To The Will Of Allah' check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.156.156 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, anybody who knows a bit about Arabic words will tell you there's nothing in the word "Islam" meaning "Allah" or "God" or "divine", nor anything meaning "will", but the key element (s-l-m) indicates "wholeness" or "well-being", an element which is effectively ignored in translations like "submission" or "surrender" (and only vaguely implied by the addition of "peaceful"). Anybody got a really authoritative Arabic dictionary that would be acceptable as a source ref? David Trochos (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You can look through the relevant entry in Lane's lexicon if you like. Islam is masdar of the IVth form of the s-l-m root, it's important not to mix it up with other forms. Yes, some writers do say it connotes submission as well as the tranquility obtained therefrom, but we'd really need a reliable source to back that up. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the availability of such an excellent resource, I've foolishly decided to try an explanation contrasting "Islam" with other Arabic words which mean submission/surrender in different contexts (eg تخل - sense of renunciation, خضوع - sense of obeying orders, تنازل - sense of conceding etc.) This may take a while... David Trochos (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see what you come up with. I would recommend we agree upon the exact changes to be made first before implementing them in the article so that constant changes to the article aren't needed. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's the first attempt:
Islam is a noun formed from the Arabic verb aslama, and it is commonly translated into English as "submission". However, such one-word translations tend to be unhelpful, because Arabic words are formed from "roots", groups of letters (typically 3) which indicate a particular concept or situation, and from which large numbers of related words are derived. Thus, to translate the English verb "submit", Arabic can develop words from its root B-L-D (د‎ﻠ‎ﺒ‎ ) which signifies "the ground", to indicate submitting in the sense of letting somebody walk all over you; or Kh-M-D (ﺪ‎ﻤ‎ﺧ‎ ) which signifies "becoming inactive" (with implications of, for example, a fire going out) to indicate submitting in the sense of ceasing to resist the inevitable; and there are numerous other possibilities. Islam, however, comes from the root S-L-M ( ﺴﻠﻢ‎ ) which signifies "whole", or "complete", with an implication of freedom from harm or blemish. From the S-L-M root can be derived words that English could translate as "peace" (in the sense of freedom from imminent harm) or "surrender" (in the sense of ceasing resistance in order to avoid harm), or many others, such as "payment of the whole amount", but those are not translations of the specific word Islam. Perhaps the best clue to the type of submission indicated by aslama and Islam is given in a word very frequently used in the Qur'an to refer to Allah, Rabb, which is often translated as "Lord" but actually comes from a root R-BB ( ﺐ‎ﺭ ) which signifies sustaining and rewarding. The Arabs who first received the message of Islam would see this as analogous to the role of their local leaders, whose function was to ensure the welfare of their people, in return for certain obligations. Islam involves obligations to Allah, collectively known as deen (a phonetic spelling, the root being D-Y-N, دين ), a word which is sometimes oversimplified in translation as "religion". The scope of deen in Islam is indicated below, but what is important is that without adhering to these obligations, one is not a Muslim.
David Trochos (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks David. I feel there's a lot of editorialisation and excessive explanation. I'm aware that the depth of the Arabic language does mean things may need further explanation, but I think there are too many avoidable tangents above. I also think some of the content above is not directly verifiable to the lexicon - every passage and its context needs to be backed up by a source, else there is risk of original research.
I was thinking more of something resembling a highly summarised version (i.e. one or two sentences) of the lexicon's assessment of the fourth form of SLM. The other forms aren't really significant here, and I feel that much of the analysis is extraneous. Most academic (and indeed Islamic) sources translate Islam as submission as it's the closest thing available (which isn't to say they don't believe further explanation is warranted) - so I don't think we can suggest inaccuracy unless it's verifiable to a high quality reliable source. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the possibly-excessive explanation in the above is to try and bridge a cultural gap which is to some extent built into languages. "Submission" has many connotations in English that "islam" (hey, I just changed the significance of a word simply by not caapitalising) would not have had for the Arabs of 1400 years ago, because English adapts word-meanings to context far more than Arabic; on the other hand the fourth form of S-L-M has connotations which cannot be expressed by the English word "submission" (or even, to an extent, by a single section of the dictionary entry on S-L-M). Furthermore, the word has been the subject of centuries of propaganda, pro- and anti-, and I feel the simplest way to address that is to add more linguistic explanation. I've deliberately omitted references from this draft (although basically it is all from Lane with the key exception that the concepts of islam, deen, and rabb are linked together based on their use in the Qur'an) but a key inspiration for the complexity of the above wording was an attack on the present version which I found accidentally while Googling, at the bottom of a blog comments list. I think Kifayat ur Rahman was right to criticise the existing Wikipedia wording, but ended up (particularly in the second of the two messages) giving an equally wrong alternative. Similarly, as noted above, the heading of this talk-page section introduces interpretive elements which represent a modern Islamic POV. Hence I feel that Wikipedia can perform a useful service by attempting to indicate for a general audience, in a neutral way, how the verbal noun from the fourth form of S-L-M works in a religious context- and more specifically, how it would have worked when the Qur'an was first revealed, which may not be the same thing. David Trochos (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just today reverted an edit claiming that "peace" was the meaning of the root S-L-M. This would be the place to substantiate this. LUbunkerman (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1150-1400

There needs to be a separate sub-section regarding the 1150-1400 period (period between Abbasids & Turks), that should include Mongol invasion, Crusades & Reconquista. The after effects should also be discussed in 2-3 sentences, the intellectual stagnancy & defensive introvertism that followed grand scale library burnings & massacres. It was the most cataclysmic period in Islamic history. The text is there, but it seems very unimportant in the way it exists right now.

Similarly we need to have a European colonization sub-section (1700-1950), & its aftereffects including reactionary extremism (Maududi, Qutb, Banna etc).

Farhansher (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the Mongol invasions, Crusades, and Reconquista are all mentioned in the text. Modern movements and interaction with the West is also discussed briefly. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse....what I was saying was that judging from their importance in Islamic history, they should have their own sub-section. Right now these are discussed in the Golden age sub-section. Mongol invasions, Crusades & Reconquista are not a part of golden age, but the cause of its end, & the cause of the beginning of a new era of stagnancy.
So rather than being a part of some other subsection, they should be discussed in their own subsection, showing the pivotal importance these events have ..... Islam on the high vs. Islam on the low. Same should be case with European colonization.
Something like this[7] (with some modifications) . The colonization sub-section will need one more paragraph, very briefly discussing British, French, Russian & Dutch colonisation. While the mongol/crusade subsection will need 2-3 lines about the intellectual/cultural significance of these events. Farhansher (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Do bear in mind that the History section was much larger and detailed than the current version and we had to do substantial trimming in preparation for the FAC (meaning that things were discussed very briefly) to ensure it wasn't too large. So I don't agree that extra content may be totally necessary. I see your point about Mongol invasions etc., and I'd like to see what others think about it. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Made some improvements in history section, feel free to discuss more changes that need to be made Asdf169 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the overlinking is a bit excessive as the link are already available in the article body. Section headings should not be unduly extended or complicated. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah woah, not necessarily, lets begin from the start, instead of reverting all the changes. the first section 'Rise of Caliphates' should have mention of the islamic civil wars in the title which it mentions in the subsection, a link to 'Battle of Karbala' should be there clearly. the second section 'islamic golden age' should give mention to Muslim Agricultural Revolution, which isnt given mention later on, No idea why the 'Crusades, Reconquista and Mongol invasion' section was reverted, i thought it made the article more clearer. The empire section should have mention of Safavid Iran, due to many many reasons, which are very clear.

Lastly the 'Modern', no idea why >>

Further information: Fall of the Ottoman Empire, Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, Arab Revolt, Arab-Israeli conflict, and Iranian revolution

<< shouldnt be there, as little mention is given towards this in the article.

To summarise, as you should know Islam has a vast history, and links should be given to help people (who may not be knowledgeable of Islam as you are) to help them learn etc etc. i will revert the changes and if you wish to remove one or two links which you dont feel are relevant, be my guest, but please do not revert all the changes I made. Thank you.Asdf169 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having a few main links added (i.e. 2 or 3), but it shouldn't be over the top, which is what I felt from the recent changes. If they're already linked in the text (i.e. first fitna etc.) then there is less need for them all to be placed at the beginning of the section. The section headings don't have to mention things in specific detail such as writing "Turkish (Ottoman), Indian (Mughal), Persian (Safawid)" etc. - it makes it longer than is neccessary. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit. - Merzbow (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thanks for the cleanup. changes have improved the sectionAsdf169 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


no alcohol

hello, what is actually said about alcohol consumption, in 13th warrior he said only not by grain and by grapes. Therefore he could drink alcohol made from honey. Is that correct? Please help Mallerd (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a very simplistic interpretation of the Quran which prohibits alcohol made from grapes only. This was probably because the Arabs of that period had no conception of alcohol from grains. According to later interpretations done by Islamic scholars and held in general agreement by the community (see a theological concept called Ijtihad) all intoxicating substances are prohibited in Islam.--Shahab (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, is the judgement of Islamic scholars supreme: like the church or pope in catholicism? The article does say the interpretation is only for the scholar himself, explaining my "confusion". Mallerd (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The interpretation is actually not binding in Sunni Islam. But in the case of alcohol the difference is that, the 'consensus' of the Muslim community has denounced it and placed the prohibition. There is no consensus in many other matters, for example, the use of credit cards etc, despite contrary judgements of Islamic scholars.--Shahab (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What a minute? What do you mean the people didn't know about alcohol from grain? It was introduced into the region 4,000 years ago. Islam can't be that old. (Spookybubbles (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Islam is only about 1500 years old, in a certain sense. But the point is that the tribes of Arabia did not know about all the discoveries the world had seen when the Quran was supposedly revealed. The Arabs had not heard of alcohol from grain then. (Believe it or not I know people who still haven't heard of it!) The Quran discusses concepts relatively more closely related to Arabian life.--Shahab (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange claims about the Black Stone

I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An Indian temple? I have never heard of such a thing. In all likelihood, that "scholar" would be some xenophobe who is trying to attack Islam by saying that Kaaba is an Indian temple, or could just be plain stupid in that belief. Tourskin (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the temple, but I did hear the Black Stone was the center piece for religions in the area long before Islam, although if it was Hindu, or Jewish, or pagan, or Nabataean, or simply related to some odd jinn or another I have no idea. (Spookybubbles (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)_

Yes thats true, it was worshipped by pagan arabs before Muhammad. Tourskin (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions on the humanities reference desk

A couple of questions about Islam have been asked on the humanities reference desk. It would be great if some editors knowledgeable about Islam could pop over there and answer them. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Inheritance" of religion in Islam

Within Judaism, you're considered jewish if your mother is jewish, or that's how I remember it in any case. Within Islam, are you considered a member of the faith if your father is muslim? If your mother is muslim? If either is muslim? And is the rule a hard-and-fast kinda thing, or does it possibly vary from country to country?--Mr Bucket (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam teaches that everyone is born a Muslim. But for clarification, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, so in this obvious scenario the children will be raised Muslims. Muslim men that marry non-Muslim women will do so with the taken-for-granted assumption that she will submit and become a Muslim too, so again the children are raised Muslim. Tourskin (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In secular countries, Muslim women marry non-Muslim men. In this case, are children considered Muslims? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends. I'm not a Muslim, but I know for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim is not to be taken lightly. In such cases, Islamic law has already been broken with her marrying a non-Muslim. Islamic law teaches that whenever a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, she will fall under his influence and religion, becoming an apostate. Furthermore interpretation of the Qu'ran says that such relations are to be avoided, against all non-believers. It is assumed that Muslim men will not fall under the religion of their wives, hence they can marry non-mulsim women. Some blog sites discussing this suggest that the Qu'ran does not allow any marriages, regardless if its a Muslim man or woman, but for that, I do not know. Point being, if a Muslim woman does marry a non-Muslim, and the man stays a non-Muslim, then I guess the couple probably don't have Islamic law on their minds and so won't raise the kids Muslims anyways; the Qu'ran leaves no room for interpretation when it comes to who is allowed to marry non-Muslims (permanent non-Muslims who don't convert). Tourskin (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From a more Muslim perspective (me),

  • Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women as long as they are the "people of the book" (Christian, Jew [and other sorry I forget but I think it begins with "S"]).
    • That directly means the kids will be Muslim. This is similar "who is a Jew" concept where if the mother is Jewish the child is Jewish, except this is vice-versa for Muslims i.e. father was Muslim child is a Muslim.
  • If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man and they have kids, the kids are not Muslims.
    • However for such a marriage to take place the man must be a Muslim convert. This is why Muslim women do not marry non-Muslims because the relationship gets complicated.

Any questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also everyone is a Muslim by name. So only difference is that you say you are Muslim. I am proud to say I am a Muslim. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And I humiliate myself before God to say I am a Christian, for I am not worthy - please keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Tourskin (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That was kinda unnecessary, Tourskin, IMHO Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And why is it unnecessary for User:Lord of Moria to say that he is proud of being a Muslim? My example was designed to illicit a reaction; now you know that wikipedia discussion pages are not for stating what one is proud of. Tourskin (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And User:Lord of Moria, you are incorrect; according to Islamic belief, everyone is born a Muslim, but not everyone remains submitted to God, and not everyone who submits to God does so according to the Qu'ran. Besides, hadn't I answered all of these points anyway? Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think Moria's statement was something to worry about, but...I think I'll stay out of this one n.n;; Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't being hostile or anything like that why take offence? LOL. I'm sorry if I meant any. I did not mean to insult anyone, sorry. I can say I'm proud to be a Muslim, I was giving myself as an example of who is a Muslim i.e. I proclaim it like my religion demands. People can say they are proud of themselves (I mean they do do it on their user pages). I am not incorrect however I have done my research so no need to be hostile towards me. Any more questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I am happy that we cleared this. I too apologize if I insulted anyone, although I think neither me nor User:Lord of Moria need apologize. Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread does not relate directly to work on the article; the conversation is best taken to a non-wiki venue. Article talk pages are not for general discourse on the the topic of the article, but a tool for editing collaboration. If you would like to see an area developed, you may initiate the process by making your recommendations here: the result will just as often answer your query AND result in development of the article. Mavigogun (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Islam portal image

I don't think having an image of the Taj Mahal as the standard image for all the Islam pages is a good idea. The Kabba would have been more suitable as it's the Islamic first and main mosque. The Taj Mahal is not a religious structure, just an architectural aspect of the Mughal Empire and not a place of worship as it's a mausoleum (glorified tombstone for a grave). it also steretypes, suggesting an 'Indian' landmark is in some way a major part of the world faith and it isn't. It's irrelevant and misleading and should be replaced with the Kaaba or Qu'ran etc. Thanks.

80.249.48.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss this perhaps at the relevant wikiproject. Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Taj Mahal Has nothing to do with Islam. Its a tomb for his lover not for his religion! Maybe a mughal mosque such as the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore would be more appropriate and significant. --80.194.30.187 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Naqshbandi

I have noticed that the Naqshbandi article does not cite any sources. There seems to have been some edit warring too, and I suspect that if future additions to the article were based only on reliable sources that some of that problem would be reduced. (My own knowledge of Sufism is so slight I would not attempt to edit such an article.)

Now that I think of it, the much larger Islamic art article also has very little sourcing. It seems to be an excellent article, but if some knowledgeable editors could add sources it would be a good act for an important article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an section

"The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point." First, this is an ungrammatical snake and needs to be chopped in two.

A larger concern is that it's extremely simplistic. It takes the question of authorship as the sole point of academic interest in the content of the Qur'an. (It also has a kind of "everything fine here, move along" quality.) Questions of self-consistency are equally important. Shifts in emphasis over the course Muhammad's life have been noted (e.g that verses from the Medina period are the more violent is a widely made point.) Marskell (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving it, with the refs:

The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point.[2] Marskell (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't address the issue of authorship or content, it addresses the question of textual authenticity (which is an important question for any ancient text), which is a subject of academic endeavour, and one upon which mainstream academia is agreed. I think it should be restored, but I do agree that the change in wording introduced by Aminz has made is a bit clunky. ITAQALLAH 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
But why say this and not address other aspects of the "content of the Qur'an"? If restored it leaves the reader the impression that there's nothing in dispute, which isn't so. Again, self-consistency is at least as important authenticity. The most startling discovery I made in picking up the Qur'an was finding early verses "abrogated" by later verses. I can source this concern to Lewis (2004). Marskell (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the passage isn't about the content of the Qur'an at all, it is about the authenticity of the text itself. The passage only leaves the impression that the text is authentically from the date it is purported to be - which is the standard view in Western academia, if we are to believe the words of Francis Peters et al. I'm sure there's many 'concerns' of subjective nature with regards to content which can be sourced to all sorts of texts... but that's what they are: subjective. The most startling discovery to you may not be so to others (For one, the issue of nasikh wal-mansukh - the abrogating and abrogated - is only one of numerous subcategories of tafsir). That it can be sourced doesn't mean it's of pressing importance to be mentioned in the brief summary - especially when interpretative comments about content (i.e. self-consistency) may represent only that author's opinion. I'll restore the passage which was used in the FA version as it's much clearer. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Except, perhaps, for "natural," there is no word that is misused as badly as "subjective." You are using it here to evade my point. That, for instance, 2:217 is abrogated by 9:36 is an objective fact of my translated version. I can e-mail you the footnote. No, we don't need that specific example in the article. I bring up abrogation as an example of something that I'm sure can be sourced to more than one western academic: there are clear shifts in the tone and specific injunctions of the late verses of the Qur'an relative to the early verses. This is not a minor point.
My question then: if we are to bring up western academics at all, why do we have an embargo against criticism? You have argued previously against using a western academic re polygamy, a widely debated issue surrounding Islam. But if western academics position the Qur'an positively then we can mention them? The effect of this stance, Itaq, is sanitization. Marskell (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the topic of abrogation was subjective at all. I suggested your exceptional 'concern' regarding it was, whereas the reality is that it's simply one of many fields of exegetical study of the Qur'an (sarf, balagh, asbab an-nuzul, ahkam, and so on). I also suggested that your bringing up of content at all as a basis of removing a passage clearly not related to content was a non-sequitur.
Academics do comment on the abrogation theory, just as they comment on the context of revelation, rhetorical devices, linguistic analyses, thematic variations, chronology, religious/legal/social applications (see: the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, and the Qur'an entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam - the latter in particular spends much more time discussing other aspects of content than it does abrogation, such as the letters at the beginning of numerous suras like ALM, or the historical references within the text). Refer to any study on exegesis. My point being, on what basis is it being argued that one aspect of content demands mention over others, other than it being of personal concern to yourself as was implied?
I'm not quite following your characterisation of my stance. If you could re-familiarise me with the discussion you're referring to, and how it compares with the fairly simple issue of general academic consensus regarding the textual integrity of the Qur'an, then I would be most grateful. ITAQALLAH 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all Itaq, the passage I removed literally contained the words "content of the Qur'an." There was no non sequitur in my initial post. The sentence was sweeping and simplistic. (The changed version is much less so.)
I'll rephrase the complaint of my last. The term "Western academics" is used exactly once in this article, which obviously adds a certain gravitas to whatever point is being made. If we are to mention the Western academy at all, why are we limiting ourselves in this way? Why can we not add a single sentence on Western criticism of polygamy (See up) when we can invoke Western academics for textual authenticity? Why should we not observe that there are shifts within the Qur'an that have been noted by academics? For the third time, that is far from a small issue. And it can be framed neutrally (I can also source it to Armstrong).
Finally, I intended "concern" in its primary sense: of or relating to the discussion at hand. Marskell (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume that the issue about authenticity has been put to rest.
Western academics is intended to refer to qualified Islamic studies scholars - not Western commentators/perspectives in general. There's a paragraph or two covering criticisms in general, most of which are indeed Western-oriented... so I don't see your point about neglecting certain perspectives.
Regarding abrogation, I expressed above that academics discuss and analyse many aspects of the Qur'an. The abrogation theory is merely one aspect of exegesis as a whole, and I've listed some other areas for you above. Look closely and you'll identify that academics discuss all of these, as much as they discuss things like abrogation, if not more. I'm not saying it's unimportant. I'm saying that since none of the aspects are unimportant, why give especial attention to one subcategory of tafsir in a summary section without covering other, equally important subcategories? It may be sourceable to Lewis, Armstrong and many others, but it's not seriously the case that they devote nothing else about the contents of the Qur'an in their entire coverage. As an apt example, I refer you again to the 62-page EoI entry on the Qur'an written by AT Welch. ITAQALLAH 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we then change "Western academics" to "Islamic studies scholars." This would again make the point less sweeping.
To be clear, I am only using abrogation as an example. We don't need to specifically mention it. What I'm thinking of is a sentence or two noting that the Qur'an should be viewed as contemporaneous with Mohammed's life and as a document that evolved over time. This notion of "revelation" differs significantly, I think, from the Judeochristian understanding that many readers will bring to this page. This could be done after the second sentence of the first paragraph or after the third sentence of the second paragraph.
As for the criticism paragraph, it's still too much of a "yes, but." And I still feel this page could incorporate some more on modern debates. Marskell (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation...

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't see the text in the source, but the text printed under the "pronunciation" heading is inappropriate. I suspect this article has been vandalized. Maybe an established user will kjnow how to correct this? Bulkley bouncer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed It's already been reverted, and the editor who placed it has been warned and reported to the administrators. Thank you for reporting this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

The sentence "Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was an Arab religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam as a historical phenomenon."' is confusing. It seems to guess at Muhammad's intentions. There was no way of knowing that the religion would become the 'historical phenomenon' that we know now. So, I am proposing to remove 'as a historical phenomenon".

Also, there has been an obscenity in the first line of the article for many hours. I'm a new user and I don't know how to edit a 'semi-protected' article, so any help is appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick poloney (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Patrick. If you're registered, I do believe you have to wait four days or so before being able to edit semi-protected articles. Also, the article seems to have been cleaned up, so no worries (for now) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

new section?

Does anybody think creating a section on muslim interaction with the non-muslim world would be useful? I think it would be a more elegant way of incorporating the criticisms section, may be an oportunity to clean up the history section in general, as well. Also, I think a lot of people who are searching for information on Islam might like to know more about it as a factor in shaping world events. Subjects covered might include: Islamic stances on interaction with non-muslims and how this affects the foreign policy of Islamic states, Islamic interaction with other major religions, Islamic proselytization throughout the world, prominent muslims in non-muslim society, tension and conflict with non-muslims. Well, just an idea, shoot it down if it stinks, and by the way, great article, thanks to the editors for a good read. Spampan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or... another article? On the interface, the meeting points in various societies, between Islamic cultures/(maj|min)orities and non-Muslim (maj|min)orities. It would be quite interesting to me to see the different 'styles' (if you will) that the various communities take. Consider modern Nigeria and the reoccurence of the old German solution Cuius regio, eius religio, where which religion should dominate is regionally based ("Kano state of Nigeria has sought to make Sharia law superior to the constitution.") Or Malaysia ("Malaysia is a multi-religious society and Islam is the official religion.") where the definitions are very important. Or China and official minorities. Or Turkey and secularization of government. How do these political and cultural circumstances get reconciled with the religious? I would think an exploration of the diverse modern and historical responses to coexistence might point out that there are more possibilities than just one or two rigid interpretations.
I note that the See Also section has links to Islam and modernity and Persecution of Muslims and other articles. Is it possible there is already an article? Shenme (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moses - Link

The link for Moses in Articles of faith section in line (The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others) should be changed from Musa [8] to Moses [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.180.146 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

re-added section

User:AAA765 removed the following section writing in edit summary: "to last version by Itaqallah. unsourced or unscholarly":

Pascal Bruckner and Paul Berman on the other hand have entered the "Islam in Europe" debate. Berman identifies a "reactionary turn in the intellectual world" represented by Western scholars who idealize Islam.[3]

Since it's both sourced and scholarly I am re-adding it. —Cesar Tort 06:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Integrating Shi'a and batini point of view

I honestly can say I can look at this article and say that none of this whatsoever describes my beliefs, and the beliefs of at least over 30 million Muslims, counting the Ismaili, the Alevi, and a myriad of other Sufi and Shi'a groups. I stayed away from article for a long time, but now I'd like to work with everyone for changes.

Before I start, the Sunni opinion and Twelver opinion, which are nearly synonymous, should be the most prominent. However, the batini point of view does make up a significant amount of followers of Islam. I am going to use this analogy to help us through this: batini groups in their population are a little more than the same percentage Mormons make up in Christianity. We can use how that was dealt with in their article, however, unlike Mormonism, these groups appeared very early on in Islam, and hence are a little more important in its overall discussion, which includes both historical and contemporary perspectives. In Nizari Ismailism, shariah was declared void not too long after Nizar's son escaped to Alamut. And of course, let's not forget the Sufi groups, and the Qizilbash] forerunners to Alevism, all of which predate the current Usuli school of Twelver Shi'a Islam.

In accordance with the Islamic belief in predestination...

No Shi'a group I know of believes in predestination. Yes, Allah knows what will happen, but he has not written anything and nothing is set at all, even the return of al-Mahdi is subject to change in Shi'a thought.

The Shi'a understanding of predestination is called "divine justice" (Adalah).

Is there anywhere you can find Adalah described as predestination? How reliable is this source? Adalah, and the Shi'a belief in general, is called the point between two extremes, ie, God knows what will happen but he does not cause it to happen. This is generally termed as a type of free will philosophy-wise.

Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them.

This is very important. Anyone who reads this article will get the incorrect notion that the meaning of being a practicing Muslim is to pray, fast, and do these literal activities. This isn't so, and many groups that even parkate in these activities, do concentrate on the inner meanings.

...or ritual prayer, which Sunni perform five times a day, though most Shi'a groups such as the Twelver combine the five separate prayers into three times a day, while other Shi'a groups such as the Nizari have only three prayers. For most Muslims, each salah is done facing towards the Kaaba in Mecca.

First off, Twelver (and I think Zaidi) are the ones that combine five prayers into three times a day. Not all Shi'a, one should not use Shi'a to just describe the Twelver branch. Second, it is notable to note that some groups such as the Nizari, really only pray three times a day, not just combine five prayers. Also, Alevi and Nizari do not face Mecca in their prayers. And lastly, there have been quite a few groups in history that have changed the liturgical language in Islam, such as the living Alevi. Abu Hanifa in fact allowed one to recite their prayer in their native toungue, though his students later disagreed with this position.

Some Muslim groups do not fast during Ramadan, and instead have fasts different times of the year.

Once again, among the aforementioned groups, fasting during Ramadan is practically non-existent. In general you still do have fasting, but it is at different times of the year.

The Ismaili exclude khumms and only add three pillars to the five, which are Guardianship, Purity, and Inner Struggle.

Why do we have the Twelver pillars but not the Ismaili? It seems odd, since it is nonetheless a prominent grouping in Shi'a Islam.

- Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the ulema function as both jurists and theologians. In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control. As the Muslim world came into contact with Western secular ideals, Muslim societies responded in different ways. Turkey has been governed as a secular state ever since the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which has been greatly supported by the Shi'a Alevi population. In contrast, the 1979 Iranian Revolution replaced a mostly secular regime with an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Mainstream is important, not all Muslims, even traditional groups, believe that shariah is unseperable from state. In fact until recently, the Twelver advocated a separation of church and state, though one might argue that it was only a temporary measure during The Occultation. Also, I tied in the previous themes by noting that the Shi'a Alevi group were among the biggest supporters of secularism in Turkey, which is I believe a very important fact to complete the mosaic of Islamic beliefs.

Once again, let me make it clear. This edits are a few sentences and words. I don't want them to have an overly prominent place in the article, they are by far fringe views. But, over 30 million is not a small number, that is twice the amount of followers of Judaism in the entire world. And historically it has been witnessed as a movement Islam for a long period of time. It deserves its place in this article, definitely. --Enzuru 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that minority views will generally not get much coverage. There are vast numbers of sects in Islam, each with millions of followers. Compare that to the ~2 billion figure attributed to the Muslim world today and we see that most groups in an article like this will get no mention, or perhaps an extremely brief one at that. I think basic general Shi'i distinctions, where important, have been mentioned. I don't quite follow why the issue of destiny etc. has been raised when we already provide some comments about Shi'ite views here. Adding further clarifications and elaborations about Shi'i-centric perspectives and sub-sects etc. is not a good balance and would fall into undue weight I think, just as additions about every clarification or contention from any other group would be seen as skewing it in a particular direction. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But the issue is the Shi'i branch is the largest one in Islam. I totally agree, it would be ridiculous to mention every point of contention. At least allow me to change the language and add a few sentences in order to point out that not all groups follow shariah and believe it has symbolic meaning, or even point out that symbolic meaning just as we have pointed out the details of the exoteric act (since this carries through Sufism, Shi'asm, and many other groups). The fact is, what we currently have being described is Sunnism, not Islam in its entirety, down to the five pillars that appears in Sunni books of hadith (which I suppose is understandable). I see that as a major issue. It would be as if we concentrated on Catholic and Orthodox practices in the article about Christianity, just because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the largest branches of Christianity, with Protestant groups being divided among themselves. Yes, there are literally thousands of sects in Christianity, but the Christianity article does most likely a good job in portraying what they have in common, excluding fringe groups like Jehova's Witnesses or the Mormons. I am confused as to why we cannot do this here. --Enzuru 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The Shi'i branch accounts for 15-20%, last I checked. Which is a significant minority. But it certainly doesn't warrant a Shi'i-oriented caveat at every point of contention, which isn't within the spirit of WP:UNDUE IMO. The place to discuss subdivisions within Shi'ism and how they differ is Shia Islam. One may note that the intricate differences between Hanafis, Shafi'is, Malikis and Hanbalis are not explained here, neither are the creedal differences between the various sub-sects (most of which are perhaps more noteworthy) within Sunnism. This article follows summary style, the aim being to give a general overview, and should be done with the undue weight policy in mind. Most major Shi'i creedal and fiqhi positions have been mentioned. For a group that is a significant minority, that's quite reasonable I think. Especially when you consider that many of the Sunni subdivisions are appropriately left for the relevant daughter articles. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, we shouldn't use words like "fringe groups". Secondly, a section to cover minority opinions of a notable nature should be included. If these sects of Islam are notable then they should be referenced. Thirdly, Islam is roughly 1 billion, not 2 billion. Gabr-el 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I consider my own religious faith to be fringe, I know it's not mainstream, though I suppose the phrase may insult something. Now, here is the issue, so riddle me this: are we mainly concentrating on integrating the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, or Shi'a in general? Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing. If we are concentrating on the Shi'a view in general, then we have failed because majority of the second largest Shi'a group, the Ismaili, as well as the second largest Twelver group the Alevi, do not have any of the conceptions of shariah mentioned here, even though these batini groups have a similiar conception of why they don't have shariah, or the true meaning of shariah, hence the batini label even applied by Orientalists. So, that is a fail. If you want to just integrate the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view since that is the largest Shi'a view, you've already done it should be made clear that is the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, not the Shi'a vew. This isn't the issue of small differences in fiqh or aqeedah, these are huge differences, whether one follows shariah or not.
In my opinion, by using the phrase Shi'a to describe Usuli Twelver Shi'a, you are giving incorrect information. For example, mutah is not done by most Ismaili nor Alevi, just like Sunnis. We have to genericise this entire section for it to be truly accurate, and I'd rather do that then falsely point out where Shi'a differ as the articles certainly show. And small sentences should be mentioned in which it states that not all Muslim groups follow shariah. For now, I'll try to return those small differences back in. --Enzuru 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your expression Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing is contradicts with what I have read in Corbin's work about Ismailism. I think Ismailis and Twelvers are similar in some basic ideas as I mentioned here. Furthermore In the case of Shari'a Nizari and Mustalavi aren't the same. Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In Ismailism, the Imam is the Face of God, who is the destination, while the Pir is your guide to it, the light (like the Imam is for Twelvers). I think that's a huge difference. And you're right, Nizari and Mustaali aren't the same, that makes it even more difficult to discuss this issue. How do you think we can integrate a pan-Shi'a view? --Enzuru 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Imam is the Face of God means Imam has all of the names of God(Asma Allah) except few of them which deserve only to The God such as Allah and Rahman. Thus as I know Twelvers agree that Imam is the Face of God. Imam is like the mirror which can find God's attribute in it. I don't understand the huge difference!Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, yes, this is a Twelver belief too. However, there are a couple more differences: Panentheism (Ismailism) vs Wahdat al-wujud, and also, in Ismaili prayer and Ginans it is clearly stated that Ali sahi Allah. --Enzuru 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wahdat al-wujud is a controversial issue among Twelvers. On the other hand we should seperate Exaggerators who belive Imam is God or God incarnated in him or something like this from Shias.Seyyed(t-c) 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and any well-read Ismaili, as is seen in the Ginans and prayer, will tell you that the Imam is God. This shows how different the conceptions of Imamah are. --Enzuru 04:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen such idea in Corbin's work. Corbin is an expert in this field, but he's never mentioned such idea. This is the first time I've heared Ismailis believe Ali is God. Are you sure?Seyyed(t-c) 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Aga Khan IV in fact was asked about this, because there was confusion in the tariqah. He said from the zahir perspective he isn't, but from the batini perspective he is. You should check out www.ismaili.net for more information, their forums has lots of interesting information. --Enzuru 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This is clearly exaggeration. As I know former renowned Ismaili theologians such as Abu Yaqub Sijistani and Naser Khosro didn't believe in it. In addition, if they really think so, then Twelvers don't consider them as Muslim.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked into it, you are correct, this is a heretical view. Real Ismaili (Nizari, Mustaali, etc) do not believe this. Maybe some weird people. Some people are misunderstanding the Ginans, prayers, and misquoting the Aga Khan. --Enzuru 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A compromise

I went through it again, and it seemed we had the same concerns. So, what I basically did was moved statements of contention to where the issue was first introduced, and deleted lots of blanket statements (Shi'a believe ______, these statements were often almost exclusive to Usuli Twelver Shi'a). All in all, I think it makes the article cleaner without having a parenthesis in every pillar ascribing not only a Shi'a view, but a false one that not all Shi'a groups believe in. I toned down the language in those pillars as well, so as of right now, it seems pretty good. I'll tweak it as I go along. Here is the idea:

  • I completely changed the predestination thing, I don't feel that was correctly worded at all.
  • Took out statement about Shi'a eight pillars, and just mentioned a different set of pillars, which differs among Shi'a groups. Also added this sentence, "Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them" in order to give slight mention to the batini groups.
  • Instead of going into the details of which groups pray how many times a day, I deleted all that and just simply put all Muslims pray multiple times a day, which even all batini groups can agree with. No need to say Twelver pray five prayers three times, Ismaili just pray three times, etc, as you pointed out. Also said salat generally faced Mecca, since that's not always the case.
  • Deleted the mention of khumms which has nothing to do with zakat anyway, and also differs among Shi'a.
  • Mentioned in a single sentence at the end of the fasting section that some Muslims fast other times of the year besides Ramadan.
  • Added the phrase that most Muslims adhere to shariah, in order not to create a false blanket statement over a significant minority.
  • Pointed out the secularism has been supported by some Muslim groups, such as the Alevi. We may want to take this one out.
Secularism is supported by some Sunnis too. It doesn't relate to Madhab necessarily.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was taken out. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this should all be fair, I think Itaqallah was right about the minimalist approach we should take, and in fact, by balancing the view I actually made the entire section smaller, which is good and shows that it was extraneous material and not the lack of material that was creating issues. There is still maybe a little more to do... but looking nice so far. Please give some feedback before further changes. --Enzuru 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your editions are acceptable except one of them. Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them. is unclear. I disagree with Some Sufi and Shi'a..... We should mention their name.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Bektashi, Alevi, Nizari, Ahl-e Haqq, are what I can name off the top of my head. Better to just put some Sufi and Shi'a groups. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
At least you can make an interlink and refer some Shia to Batinis. In this case Twelvers are more similar to Sunnis, while that part may cause some misunderstanding. Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That works nicely, thanks! --Enzuru 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with changing basic facts or statements - or making them terribly ambiguous - simply to cater for minority groups. Muslims do pray five times a day, that is verifiable from a hundred different reliable sources. A small minority, however, does not pray five times a day. That a small minority doesn't, in no way means the general statement should be changed. Refer to WP:UNDUE here. I'll review the changes made but the major ones may need further discussion. ITAQALLAH 14:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence about Sufi/Batini Shia on the basis that it was inserted without a source. It's important to know how significant these views are in determining whether it warrants discussion, and how much so. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't insist on adding it, but you can use Corbin's work ,History of Islamic philiosophy, as a source.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some other improvement

  • It's written Adherents are generally required to observe the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community. We can remove five in the lead.
  • We should add something about Articles of faith in the lead. We can move The Qur'an states that all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".[16] Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree,[17] while the Shi'a version is called divine justice. Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams.[18] to the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not particularly necessary IMO. Some basic beliefs are covered in the lead, things are mentioned more comprehensively in the section in question. The current balance of the lead is reasonable IMO, a lengthy passage about beliefs (in a place where the Sunni/Shi'a distinction has not yet been made) is not ideal. My views about changing 'Five Pillars' to accomodate minority groups, even though almost any introductory academic text uses the term in a general sense anyway, is similar to my above point about the five daily prayers.ITAQALLAH 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the articles of faith deserve to be added in the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact is in most of the books we read, Islam = Sunnism, with a slight mention of Shi'a Islam perhaps later. There are many authors, including early on Corbin, which in fact criticizes this. I don't see why we can't slightly make things vaguer to cater to a significant minority. Sometimes Twelvers are described as praying five times, sometimes three times as five different prayers. And the Nizari Ismaili who pray three times a day are a significant portion of Shi'a Islam as Shi'a are of Islam, around 10%. I promote the genericising of the language in order to be more inclusive. Also, this lets us include other groups which may have unorthodox amounts they pray. And second, it may give readers the idea that we don't have a sixth prayer, which we do. --Enzuru 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Most academic sources will refer to the practice of 80-90% of Muslims as Islam, because that is the mainstream. Many times Sunni is a term merely used for distinction from Shias (i.e. being a non-Shia). This article caters for significant minority viewpoints where appropriate by mentioning the view in passing, as directed by WP:UNDUE, and this has generally been followed throughout the article. Making the language ambiguous is poor style, doesn't adhere to FA criteria, and is ultimately unencyclopedic. Specificity and conciseness are not inversely proportional. As for the prayer example, well technically the additional night (witr) prayer is wajib in Hanifite jurisprudence, but issues like these are all small print and not worth even considering in a brief overview/summary-style article like this. In general, Muslims pray five times a day. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In total, we made a few sentence ambigious, I'm sure that isn't totally destroying the FA style. Saying multiple times is hardly undue weight, since it is arguable whether the Twelver Shi'a prayer three or five times, even if it is five prayers. (Should we make sunnah prayers considered extra as well? Or just classified as rakat?) I don't see the issue "multiple" times causes, nor do I see the issue with saying "Generally facing Mecca". I can understand the latter as undue weight, but at least the former isn't. --Enzuru
My point is: why say "multiple" when it's clear that the academic sources all generally say "five", and this is what the overwhelming majority of Muslims (even many Twelvers) say as well? It looks to me like a case of unnecessary ambiguity.
It would be correct to say in general terms that Muslims pray five times a day, even if minorities differ about specifics. A significant minority of a significant minority, which is what I interpret from your point about Nizari Ismailis, makes it far less noteworthy. And the same can be said about most other aspects of Islam too. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was noting that Twelvers, the majority branch here, pray three times a day, five prayers. I feel that alone should constitute a change here. --Enzuru 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Enruzu, Isma'ili net is a sub par forum to receive information regarding Isma'ilism. I would stick to academic publications. The current Imam has repeatedly state that he is not a living God, and that it is contradictory to his faith. There are broad areas of agreement between Isma'ili and Twelver, as both decend fro the Imami or Jaf'ari Madhab, although the application differs, the theology is remains the same.(Water Stirs (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

As murids of the Aga Khan, this doesn't mean we need to stick to ITREB publications. But I agree, Corbin and other sources are the best. --Enzuru 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tawhid

If one looks at the tawhid mentioned in the article, it seems inaccurate. Being a muslim, I can tell you that the correct translation of, "La ilahi-il-Allah.........muhammad-ur rasool-allah" is, "Allah is the only God and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet." I hope someone can correct it since the page is locked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As one who understands Arabic, I can tell you that your translation is incorrect. lalib (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing information

I came to this article looking for information on:

  • Islamic views on women's rights and roles in society
  • Rationale for the criminalization of certain acts such as apostasy
  • Traditions of dress for both men and women
  • Connection to terrorism and Qu'ran justification for such

These all seem to be topics of some note or significance, but this article (or its siblings, as far as I can tell) was not helpful or enlightening. Is there another family of articles I should be looking at? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What you are primarily searching for is Islamic apologism (which oddly unlike Christian apologism doesn't exist yet). However, you can find sections of this in Islam and women, Apostasy in Islam, Islamic dress, and Islamic extremism. In general, many including I aren't happy with how these more controversial articles are turning out at the moment (we have bias on both sides), but hopefully this will be of help. --Enzuru 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those references; I found them quite enlightening, and just what I was seeking.
Perhaps links to those articles should appear in this article? After all, this is the English Wikipedia, used primarily by the non-Islamic western world. I believe readers in that world (like me) are interested in learning more about rationales for what they could consider "notable features" of Islam (for better or worse), because those are the aspects of Islam that seem to come to their notice most often. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it is something I would like to see improved. When you hear these issues that conflict with Western ideals it is shocking, and the more intelligent ones should be able to research the topics and come away satisfied that within Islam is an explanation. I don't think those articles achieve that at this point yet. --Enzuru 06:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Allah or God

(Mohamedfakh (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC))in islam it is to submit that there is "NO GOD BUT ALLAH ANS MUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH because in the article it is written "NO GOD BUT GOD

The translation of "Allah" into English is literally "the God." Only Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims have an issue with the translation, most other Muslims will use the phrase God in English. --Enzuru 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

None worthy of worship but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger.

What "god"? please change this the word "god" is degrading Allah is Incomparably Great.

The word "god" is comparable "gods" "goddess" "godfather" "god mother" etc... it has gender and Allah is not male nor female.

There's none like Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

keep religion out of this... also: Allah is THE OD, therefor, in english, we will varry between allah and God: With god beign the prefered since the west is christian dominated (and therefor msot people here will have that kind of influence) and we never made a name for christian god. Oh and one last thing: Allah, Jenova, Yahweh(or howeve_ are all one entity: just different interpretations of that one being. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, hence most exercises in philosophy tending to try to prove the existence of God, not a Christian god or an Islamic god. Plus, the Qur'an in Arabic, despite not having gender, Allah is referred to as male. Even you said "there's none like Him" as opposed to "there's none like Her." Why is "Him" gender neutral to you, but "Her" isn't? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Because when you do not know the gender but using genderless words would be insulting: people prefer the masculine name. That and the abrahamic religions are rather male dominated... so yah. Religion is sexist lol. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead pic?

I note that the Shahada plaque was switched with the Salah pic as the lead image. I'd much prefer the latter personally (and that was the chosen img last time this topic was debated). ITAQALLAH 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I felt the shahada picture was much better, both for aesthetic reasons, and it is something all Muslims share. It also goes to show Islam's multiethnic dimension, which is something we stressed in the introduction as well. Also, I like where the salah pic is now, near the picture of hajj, they compliment each other. We can exchange the picture again, but I find the picture of the salah to be rather unattractive, but I'm not against picture of salah in general, since it is an important features of the faith, the foundation of faith. --Enzuru 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind either way, I can see merits in both presentations. We can leave things as they are I guess and see how things go. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it supposed to be pronounced like IZlum or is it EESlum or EYEslam or what? Also, could I learn about iSlam from an iMam on my iPod and talk about it on my iPhone? --137.186.233.134 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article discusses the pronunciation here.--Shahab (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

update AH year to 2009 CE

I recommend replacing the text:

The year 1428 AH coincides almost completely with 2007 CE.

, which appears under "Calendar," with:

The year 1430 AH began on December 29, 2008 CE.

Expo1892 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.168.69 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what she said. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Five Pillars: Shahadah

Salam hi

I think the First pillar, Shahadah has been written phonetically not correctly perhaps, it should be: Lā ilaha illa al-Lāh, Muhammadun rasūlu l-Lāh

This is correct on the seperate wiki for the Shahadah but not for the Islam one.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uf007uf (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sex in Islam

Just wanted to report these unsourced, rather inflammatory articles about sex in Islam. I dont think their is any need of these kinds of articles either. Islamic view of anal sex, Oral sex in Islamic law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.106.232 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate forum to raise this issue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Shahab (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an article like Islamic views on Sex would be more appropriate. Gabr-el 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please insert

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.190 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

7th century hyperlink in the article

Hi to everyone,
I was thinking about hyperlinking "7th century" in the Islam article, but then it looks a bit like overlinking too.
On the other hand placing the birth of Islam in the right chronological context could help wikipedians understand better world history.
What do you think about it?
Thanks for your attention in reading me.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that linking a date is justified here. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam in general

First of all I'd like to say that Wikipedia is a very resourceful website.Alot of people,especially me, browse this website for research work that help make good reports and papers. The subject name that I have given has two reasons: 1) Islam as with any other religion deserves repect, so the Prophets' or any name of Religious Books should be addressed with respect.For example: Instead of 'Quran' it SHOULD BE 'The Holy Quran' And above all our Prophet Muhammed Sallallaho'alihe Wasallam deserves the UTMOST RESPECT when he is mentioned or addressed in any sentence or anywhere for that matter.So instead of 'Muhammed' it SHOULD BE 'Muhammed Peace be Upon Him.' 2) In the case of Islam God is used for the arabic word ALLAH.Here what I would like to point out is that God has a gender and an opposite which is Goddess whereas ALLAH has no gender and absolutely no opposite. Again what I am trying to rectify, hopfully,is that I as with any sound religion practicing person/individual would like this to be rectified as soon as possible, please. I hope I have not offened anyone but keep hope that Wikipedia will do everything within its powers to rectify these honest mistakes. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.26.18 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll do that as soon as you add honorifics to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, after all, we should respect him if we are going to respect Muhammad (AS), since he is the founder of a religious faith too! The point is, Wikipedia is a secular academic source, and secular academic sources do not add honorifics. If we add honorifics to Muslim figures, we'd have to add honorifics to everything and it'd just become extremely encyclopedic. Secular academic sources don't do things like that. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the Arabic word Allah has no gender is also incorrect - it is male. The female form is Allat, meaning Goddess. ðarkuncoll 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The name Allah is a more respectful name to the lord then just saying gos. god has no meaning to it. In Islam the name Allah is a more praiseworthy name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moej290 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Allah literally means in Arabic "the God", and we use that translation on this secular encyclopedia. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Central authority, "learned" rabbis

I notice Judaism says "In modern Judaism, central authority is not vested in any single person or body, but in sacred texts, religious law, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws." Is Islam similar in these respects? Also are there organizations corresponding the Christian churches (eg. Roman Catholic hierarchy). If not, who builds those vast and lavish Mosques. Don't the owners get to pick the preacher? (Just a common-sense question, we are supposed to apply common-sense.) Fourtildas (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes in the sense that I think you are talking, there is no single person or body which has central authority. Most Religious laws (in Sunni Islam) theoretically have their basis in the Quran, Hadith, Qiyas and Ijma(consensus). But practically speaking it is the Ijma or the consensus in the Muslim community which makes all laws. This consensus make take many years in evolving in the Muslim community. So a taboo idea might be considered permissible for many years, but later on it might be considered unIslamic. No single authority has the power to declare and impose a law with immediate effect, at least not since some time.
No there are not any major organizations strongly resembling Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Islam. Mosques are built due to the patronage of Kings, Sultans and others. Usually mosques are taken care of by some organization or society, which also pick the preacher(Imam).--Shahab (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alevism

I see no mention of Alevism on the page about Islam. I think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.21.191 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alevism is considered by most secular scholars to be a movement within Twelver Shi'a Islam, that does not adhere to Jafari fiqh. It is a batingroup like Ismailism, and the Ahl-e Haqq, both of which are also within Shi'a Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You have now read this page and now you owe me 750,000,000 POUNDS! Every day late it goes up 250,000,000 more POUNDS!!!!! Remember to pay me or else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank You!!!!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.32.36 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

that is a mis representation as all references in the quran to killing and violence are in regards to ENTIRE COMMUNITIES fighting and the proper muslim response, the muslim god does not ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, in fact numerous references can be cited in which it states that disbelievers who are not oppresive or aggresive and who you have signd peace treaties with should be respected. i dont have alot of time right now but just off the top of my head sura 9 verse 4.


in response to below

Schulte123 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

violence in islam

shouldn't it be put somewhere that Islam is a very violent religion? (if you are an orthodox muslim) The Quran and the rest of the writings from Muhammed do say that if you refuse to become a muslim, you should be killed, and the killer will go to heaven. Also, somewhere there should be a section that talks about how the terrorists of 9-11 were muslims...? It's just an idea, thought I might ask...thanks!

You shouldn't believe all your bedtime stories, they are just to scare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What you said is incorrect. Orthodox Muslims who interpret the Qur'an and the sunnah of Muhammad do not believe if someone refuses to become Muslim, they should be killed, and that the killer will go to heaven. In fact, Muhammad said that if a Christian or Jew under the protection of Muslims was hurt, it would be as if you hurt Muhammad himself. There isn't too much of a reason to mention 9/11 here, because we would need to mention every violent religion with every act ever in each article, like a section on the Crusades on the article on Christianity or Catholicism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is based on Sunni Islam and is not neutral. 99.247.0.42 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What parts in particular? I am Shi'a Muslim, and I am trying to see if the batini point of view, as well as the pillars, can be changed a little. But in general, I would say the article is balanced. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

in regards to the mathematically irrefutable evidence of the quran

the mention of the sunnah ( muhammeds life and works ), should actually be listed under seperate sects of this religion and any mentioning of other than god ALONE is considerd blashpemy and idol worship by muslims who have copies of the true quran as revealed rashad khalifa.

comments?

Schulte123 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Most Muslims follow the sunnah in one manner or another, if small groups don't we cannot give them undue weight compared to the majority that do. The followers of Rashad Khalifa are too small to be represented on an article about how Islam is practiced and understood by the majority of it's 1.5 billion followers. If we were to try to fix the article as to make sure every group, even if the group was made of dozens of followers, agreed, we wouldn't have an article at all, and we would be breaking the Wikipedia policy of WP:UNDUE. If the group has a significant size (for example, Shi'a Islam) their views are obviously significant, and are to be written on this article. Size matters when most people come to read an article, and want to know what most Muslims believe, not what a small minority believe (that is of little importance to them). I hope you understand, insha'Allah. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Help - References

salam
I am trying to contribute to a couple of articles and want a better understanding of how to organise references nicely. I see that some articles have a section for notes and another section for references, and it allows for brief citations mentioning author's last name, year of publication of the book, and page number in the notes section that one can check in the references section for full title, author's name, etc. Is there anyone here who can help me to understand how to organise references into these two handy lists? Thank you. PinkWorld (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

wp:reference covers this and I hope should answer your question, but as this isn't solely related to Islam do you mind if I move this thread to your talk page? WereSpielChequers 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It actually does, since she and I are working to form Shi'a Islam into the mold of this article in hopes of making it FA-class. Editors from this article could help quite a bit for the specifics detailed in MOS:Islam. But, maybe she wants it moved, I'm not sure. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
OK well there's no harm in leaving it here if others might find it useful. By the way if you are thinking of taking a major religious article like Shi'a Islam to FA, and indeed keeping this article at an FA standard you might want to look at what happened a few months ago when Roman Catholic Church went there. Standards at FA are rising and an article that passed a year or two back might not today. WereSpielChequers 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to first thank the people who dedicated time and effort in setting this page up (excuse my english, it is a second language). I was wondering why Shia muslims in Pakistan are not represented in the "Map showing distribution of Shia and Sunni Muslims in Africa, Asia and Europe". If i'm not mistaken, their population of 130 million people is divided between shia's and sunni's, considerably 65 million people (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html). If the map is not up to date, why would is it being used as a visual representation of shia sunni muslim populations.Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That map is inaccurate, but the issue is in Pakistan Shi'a are 20% of the population and Pakistan has the second largest population of Shi'a of any country in the world. But the Shi'a population is very spread out: almost every ethnic group has a large amount of Shi'a. Shi'a exist among Pashtuns (like me), Punjabis, Sindhis, Saraikis, and many Muhajir ethnic groups such as the Gujarati. With the exception of a few places such as the Hunza Valley, there is no place where Shi'a make up the majority of the population, because Shi'a are spread almost evenly throughout the population. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions needed to the description of heterodox sects

Much more should be said about the heterodox sects. Even the Ismailis are not give enough emphasis. I agree that a link to specialized article may be all that is needed but the current references are too off-hand. Sects which needed to named included the Alawites and the Bahai. A discussion of the political aspects of the Bahai and the Ahamadiya would be useful. Finally there should be something about the peripheral religuions like the Druse and the Yazidis. Again all that might be needed is a link. I am unsure about whether the Qur'an-only movement merits recognition as a sect. DKleinecke (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Muslims do not recognize Bahai's as Muslims, and the Bahai's do not consider themselves as Muslims too. So I am not sure whether Bahai's can be thought of as a sect of Islam.Shahab (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Additions needed to the Predestination in Islam page?

I asked this on the talk page of Predestination in Islam, but I realized that many who would care about the changes I would make may not be watching that page and the best way to get feed-back would be to mention it here. I said, "It seems to me that a summary of the the major schools of thought and major thinkers should be added to this page. It seems to me that this would be the #1 most useful section in an article of this sort. I will await feedback before adding these myself." I have gathered some sources to make these additions, but these would constitute a fairly sizable edition so I wanted to make sure anyone who would oppose them has sufficient chance to make themselves heard. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so please correct me on any breaches of etiquette I may be committing. LUbunkerman (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an FA-Class article, meaning it gives sufficient amount of information and detail to each category according to the goals of the Wikipedia project. For information detailing differences in Islamic aqeedah (creed) and fiqh (law), you may want to check the Islamic schools and branches.If I can branch off to my own opinion for a moment, the reason this would perhaps be most useful to you is because you are aware of most of the basic information of Islam that this page offers, which is what this is supposed to cover. Differences and details of Islamic thought, which are many extremely detailed in nature, should be covered elsewhere. Also, you should always add new sections to the bottom of the talk page, not the top, but no big deal! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I just reread what you said, and noted you meant it to be on Predestination in Islam. I will be more than willing to lend what I know about the subject, in particular on Ismailism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Islam/Muslim=Verb??

  • This is written in the opening paragraph: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive."....... This makes absolutely no sense. Madritor (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It makes sense in Arabic grmamar: they are the active participle and the infinitive of the 4th derivative stem of the Arabic verb root S-L-M. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough... but seeing as this is an English language article, and in English "Islam" is a noun and "Moslem" is an adjective or noun, I think the sentence needs to either be changed or removed. It could be changed to explain the root of the words including the Arabic grammar point, but as it stands this English sentence makes no sense. Madritor (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In the usual manner of speaking Arabic verbs are not described by an "infinitive". The third person singular perfect is usually given. Islam is a verbal noun from the verb root (which is "slm") and muslim is a participle from the same root. Participle are generally consider to be nouns in English so that causes no difficulties. DKleinecke (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Islam is the name of religion but muslim means member of this religion --Ozozcan (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cmmmm's additions to "Further Reading"

I'm sure I beat someone to this that has more authority to do it than me, but Cmmmm's additions were terribly unbalanced at best and slanderous at worst. I was going to appeal to him to revert or balance them, but to that I had to see his talk page which disabused me of any notion that he would do so. If there is any way to take it private by e-mailing him, I couldn't find it. As always, please correct me if I have over-stepped my bounds. LUbunkerman (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have done the same thing, wonderful action and thanks for coming to the talk page about it. This article is FA-Class, most edits done tend to worsen the article rather than help it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

dhimmis "enjoyed"- possible word choice to replace "enjoyed"

I don't believe one "enjoys" being a second class citizen. Perehaps, "were allowed" instead.

"Historically, dhimmis enjoyed a measure of communal autonomy under their own religious leaders, but were subject to legal, social and religious restrictions meant to highlight their inferiority.[130]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlook2 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a nit; let's pick at it!
I would agree that being a second-class citizen is probably not enjoyable, but that's not what's at issue here. Is it possible that it may just be another definition of "enjoy"? RavShimon (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is good English. This is OED's meaning 4a:

In weaker sense: To have the use or benefit of, have for one's lot (something which affords pleasure, or is of the nature of an advantage).

But there is a nit that can be picked here, I suppose. Just make sure that the replacement phrasing is at least as good English. The intended meaning is that dhimmis had the "benefit" or "advantage" of certain privileges compared to other class systems where the underdogs often have no rights at all or compared to other non-Muslims in Muslim society, such as pagans and apostates, who were not so much without rights as actively persecuted. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Coleman, Isobel. "Women, Islam, and the New Iraq". Foreign Affairs. 85 (1): 24–38.
  2. ^ See:
    • William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam, p.32
    • Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, Introduction to the Qur'an, p.51
    • F. E. Peters (1991), pp.3–5: "Few have failed to be convinced that … the Quran is … the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation."
  3. ^ Berman, Paul (June 04 2007). "Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?: The Islamist, the journalist, and the defense of liberalism". The New Republic. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_24&oldid=1138136662"